Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

Case 1:19-cv-01203-LY-SH Document 127-1 Filed 09/24/21 Page 1 of 116
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
LINDA SUSAN MULLENIX, §

§
Plaintiff §
§ Civil No. 1:19-cv-1203-LY
-v- §
§
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT §
AUSTIN, §
§
Defendant. §
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND
Given the extraordinary breadth and volume of your work, I think you
are in line, after Professor Subrin, to be the next guru of the field
Professor Geoffrey Miller

Stuyvesant P. Comfort Professor of Law
New York University School of Law
I believe what she writes and what I have read was quite good. I
thought it was insightful. I thought it was important. I thought it was
thoughtful. And she is also very, very prolific . . . . [H]er work in the
law journal is really, really good. I believe she is a leading civil
procedure scholar.
Professor Richard Freer

Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law
Emory University School of Law
Linda has a significant reputation in the field [of civil procedure].
Professor Robert Bone

G. Rollie White Teaching Excellence Chair in Law
The University of Texas School of Law
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND Page— 1
I believe that – the way the system works at the [University of Texas
School of Law] she will not get fair treatment.
Professor Robert Peroni

Fondren Foundation Centennial Chair for Faculty Excellence
I am sorry to say that the quality of Professor Mullenix’s writing,

whether classified as scholarship or service, is not generally considered
very impressive.
Dean Ward Farnsworth

John Jeffers Research Chair in Law
Since 2016, Professor Linda Mullenix, one of UT Law’s most distinguished
professors, has been paid at least $237,297 less than male professor Robert Bone.
Professor Bone has similar above-average teaching evaluation ratings as Professor
Mullenix, but almost a decade less overall teaching experience, fewer than a third of
Professor Mullenix’s overall publications, and fewer professional honors. Professor
Bone is not underpaid. Professor Mullenix is. This pay gap is a violation of the Equal
Pay Act and Title VII sex discrimination.
Moreover, UT Law has retaliated against Professor Mullenix for opposing the
law school’s unequal pay practices. For the last several years, Professor Mullenix has
received among the lowest raises of any tenured faculty. For example, Professor
Mullenix received a $1,500 raise for the 2018-2019 academic year, which was the
lowest raise given to any faculty member who received a raise. That same year,
Professor Bone, and many other professors with lower teaching evaluations, less
teaching experience, and fewer publications than Professor Mullenix, received
$10,000 raises, some of the highest raises given because Dean Farnsworth
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
guaranteed raises to specific faculty regardless of their merit or performance. In 2018,
Dean Farnsworth also retaliated against Professor Mullenix and attempted to chill
reports of discrimination by telling Professor Mullenix that he would only pay her the
same as Professor Bone if she agreed to retire in two years. At the time, Professor
Mullenix was 68 years old and intended to teach at UT Law until she was at least 80.
In retaliation and despite Professor Mullenix’s repeated requests to be
appointed Associate Dean for Research, she has been relegated to “do-nothing”
committees that have little impact on law school governance. This marginalization
of disfavored faculty is a common tactic employed by Dean Farnsworth and prior
deans to punish outspoken faculty. Most disturbingly, because of Professor Mullenix’s
challenges to UT Law’s unequal pay and other discriminatory practices, she has been
made a pariah by the administration and her colleagues. New professors are told to
stay away from her and that she is “poison.” Indeed, Dean Farnsworth, the law
school, and the university have waged a scorched earth campaign denigrating,
debasing, and disparaging Professor Mullenix to her peers, the public, and this court.
This very public war against one the law school’s most distinguished scholars and
teachers is meant to retaliate and used as a not-so-subtle warning to any other
professors who might wish to speak out about issues at the law school or the
university.
UT Law has reason to be worried about others speaking out about unequal pay
and sex discrimination. From 2016 until at least 2020, UT Law, on average, paid
tenured female professors at least $20,000 less than tenured male professors.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
By paying Professor Mullenix less than similarly-situated male professors and
retaliating against her for challenging unequal pay based on gender, UT Law has
violated Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.
I
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Linda Mullenix is an individual who resides in Travis County, Texas,
and has during all relevant times been employed by the University of Texas at
Austin.
2. Defendant, University of Texas at Austin, is a state university located within
the Western District of Texas. Defendant has already been served through its
President.
II
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has original jurisdiction to hear this complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1331, this action being brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et al. and 29 U.S.C. §
206.
4. Venue is appropriate because the acts giving rise to this lawsuit occurred
within the Western District of Texas.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III
FACTS
A. Professor Mullenix has been teaching for nearly 48 years, has taught at
the University of Texas School of Law for almost 31 years, and is a
nationally recognized scholar in the fields of civil procedure and federal
courts.
5. Professor Linda Mullenix currently holds the Rita and Morris Atlas Chair in
Advocacy at the University of Texas School of Law, where she has been
teaching since 1991.
6. As of September 2021, Professor Mullenix has over 47 years of teaching
experience, making her the most senior woman on the UT Law faculty. In
spring 2022 she will enter her 48th year of teaching.
7. At UT Law, Professor Mullenix teaches first-year federal civil procedure, mass
tort litigation, and a seminar on transnational class actions. In the past, she
has taught complex litigation, federal courts, and conflict of laws.
8. Professor Mullenix’s academic responsibilities include creating course syllabi
and updating course materials, teaching course content, holding office hours
with students, counseling students on academic and career issues, creating
and grading student performance assessment measures, performing
institutional committee obligations, attending law school faculty events,
research and publication of books, treatises, articles, and other commentary,
engaging in continuing legal education, engaging in professional activities
outside the law school (such as serving on various federal, state, and local
committees), participating as a speaker or conferee at academic and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
professional meetings and conferences, and serving as a peer reviewer of
colleagues’ research and scholarship.
9. Professor Mullenix earned her B.A. degree in political science from the City
College of New York, where she graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa.
10. Professor Mullenix earned M.Phil and Ph.D degrees in political theory from
Columbia University, and her law degree from Georgetown University Law
Center.
11. After law school she practiced appellate litigation in Washington, D.C.
12. Since beginning to teach in 1974, Professor Mullenix has been a visiting
professor at Oxford University and the University of Trento in Italy.
13. Professor Mullenix has been a visiting professor at Harvard, the University of
Michigan, and Southern Methodist University law schools.
14. She held the Reuschlein Distinguished Visiting Chair at Villanova and
served as the Katherine Ryan Distinguished Professor at the Institute on
World Legal Problems in Innsbruck, Austria.
15. She has delivered lectures on class actions and complex litigation to academic
and professional audiences around the world, including in Australia, Austria,
Brazil, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Germany, Israel, Italy, South
Africa, Switzerland, and the U.K.
16. Professor Mullenix has numerous professional honors. Among others, she has
served as a Supreme Court Fellow at the Federal Judicial Center; was a
scholar-in-residence at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Study and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Conference Center in Italy; and held the Fulbright Senior Distinguished Chair
in Law in Trento, Italy.
17. She is an elected Life Member of the American Law Institute, an elected Life
Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation, and an elected Life Fellow of the
American Bar Foundation. She also is an elected member of the International
Association of Procedural Law. She served on the Board of Directors of the
Austin Fulbright Alumni Association.
18. Professor Mullenix served as an Associate Reporter on the American Law
Institute Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, a consultative member
of the ALI Transnational Rules of Civil Procedure, and the ALI Complex
Litigation Project.
19. In 2020, the American Law Institute requested that Professor Mullenix
contribute a chapter to the ALI’s upcoming centennial volume commemorating
the 100th anniversary of the Institute. Professor Mullenix was one of a very
small group of distinguished scholars invited to contribute to this volume.
20. Since 2020 Professor Mullenix has been working on an international
collaborative project sponsored by the Max Planck Institute for Procedural
Law in Luxembourg, on Comparative Procedural Law and Justice.
21. In 2012, the Travis County Women’s Law Association awarded her the
“Pathfinder 2012” Award. This honor recognizes women in the community who
“have used their law degrees in ways that inspire the rest of us.”
22. Professor Mullenix has the second largest publication record of any faculty
member. This publication record can be verified by the review of Professor

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Mullenix’s curriculum vitae, and the CVs of every UT faculty member placed
in the record in this litigation.
23. Professor Mullenix has authored over 99 law review articles and book chapters,
is the author or co-author of over 20 books, and has written 200 articles of short
commentary, analysis, or reviews.
24. Her scholarship is cited by state and federal courts across the country. In fact,
from 2000 through 2017, Professor Mullenix was the only UT faculty member
to be listed as a top-ten scholar in the field of civil procedure on Professor Brian
Leiter’s compilation of citation rankings by academic fields.
25. Professor Mullenix is the only female faculty member of UT law school to be
repeatedly listed as a top 250 most-cited scholar, in all fields, by HeinOnline.
26. As of September 2021, SSRN reported that Professor Mullenix’s articles had
been downloaded more than 10,000 times from the SSRN database.
27. Her students have recognized her for teaching excellence. From 2017 through
2020, Professor Mullenix—with an average rating of 4.76—has had the second
highest student evaluation ratings among the senior cohort of professors.
28. Professor Mullenix has long served the profession in numerous capacities,
including serving on American Bar Association committees; as a thirty-five
year contributor to the ABA Preview of Supreme Court Cases; as an Associate
Reporter for an ALI Restatement; as a Co-Reporter and Legal Advisor to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; as a member
of a Special Committee of the District of Columbia Bar on Ethics, Continuing
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Legal Education and the Model Rules; as a Reporter for the National
Conference on State-Federal Judicial Relationships; as an Advisory Committee
member for the National Center for State Courts Study on Civil Discovery, and
on the Board of Directors and Advisory Board of numerous publications.
29. Professor Mullenix has also served the profession as a keynote speaker or
conference participant at more than 150 professional programs sponsored by
law school and professional organizations.
30. Professor Mullenix has served the academic profession by active participation
in various committees of the Association of American Law Schools, including
as Chair of the Professional Development Committee; the planning committees
for numerous AALS programs and workshops; and as speaker and discussion
leader for many AALS programs.
31. Internally at the law school Professor Mullenix has served the law school in
the past by participation in the work of various committees, including as past
Chairperson of the Appointments Committee; the Tenure and Promotion
Committee; the Budget Committee; Capital Campaign Advisory Committee;
Advocacy Programs; Voting Procedures; International Studies; Graduate
Studies; Computer Committee; Rules & Procedures; Faculty Governance; and
the Teaching Committee.
32. After Dean Farnsworth became the dean in 2012, Professor Mullenix was
removed from all law school committees important to law school governance
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
and instead was assigned to a series of committees that did not meet and did
minimal work.
33. Professor Mullenix has also served the law school internally by attending
colloquia and Drawing Board sessions; participating in faculty recruitment by
writing assessments of candidates for the Appointments Committee; attending
job talks and interviewing prospective candidates; offering comments on
papers to colleagues (both internally and externally) upon request; presenting
a colloquium on a work-in progress; attending colleagues’ seminars with
invited speakers; meeting with students and providing career advice, including
writing clerkship, internship, and other recommendations; attendance at
almost all alumni functions; and active participation in the Texas Law Fellows
fundraising efforts.
34. Professor Mullenix has served the University as an elected member of the
University of Texas Faculty Grievance Committee, currently serving a three-
year term.
35. Professor Mullenix has served the external academic community by reviewing
draft scholarship of colleagues at other law school; over thirty years writing
numerous tenure reviews for junior faculty under consideration for promotion
to tenure; writing academic assessments of colleagues at other law schools
under consideration for promotion or appointment to Chairs or other
distinctions; serving as a reviewer for publishers on book proposals; and
writing testimonials for retiring colleagues.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
B. In 2010, Professor Mullenix discovered that she was being paid less than
comparable male faculty at UT Law.
36. In December 2010, while researching the Texas Tribune’s government salary
tracker, Professor Mullenix discovered that she was being severely underpaid
compared to her male colleagues.
37. She asked then-Dean Lawrence Sager to provide her with the salary array for
all UT Law professors.
38. After six months of discussion, in late May 2011, Dean Sager complied, albeit
only in part, by providing a partial salary array.
39. According to that array, Professor Mullenix was paid around $50,000 less than
Professor Robert Bone, a recent lateral hire with less teaching experience than
Professor Mullenix and a less substantial publication record.
40. Professor Bone is a proper comparator because he teaches civil procedure as
does Professor Mullenix and he is also in the same faculty cohort at UT Law.
Through its responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, the University
has admitted that Professor Bone’s position requires the same skill, effort, and
responsibility as Professor Mullenix’s position. Further, the University has
admitted that both Professor Mullenix and Professor Bone perform their jobs
under similar working conditions.
41. When Professor Mullenix pointed out the gap between her and Professor
Bone’s salary, Dean Sager said, “I knew you would be upset when you saw
that.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
42. Despite Dean Sager’s apparent acknowledgement that Professor Mullenix was
not being properly paid, Dean Sager refused to negotiate any adjustment to
her salary, deferring this conversation for several months.
43. Because of his unwillingness to negotiate a salary adjustment and anticipating
possible legal action by Professor Mullenix, Dean Sager tried to discourage
Professor Mullenix from taking legal action.
44. Even though Professor Mullenix had never mentioned or discussed with Dean
Sager the possibility of pursuing legal action, Dean Sager threatened her,
stating that if she brought a lawsuit, “you will never be able to work anywhere
again,” and “nobody will like you.”
45. In September 2011, after retaining counsel, Professor Mullenix settled her
Equal Pay Act claim against the School of Law.
46. The settlement paid Professor Mullenix $250,000, increased her salary by
$20,000, and required the University to provide her with a salary array at the
beginning of each academic year in order for her to monitor UT Law’s
continued compliance with its equal pay obligations.
47. The $250,000 payment was structured, over objections by Professor Mullenix
and her lawyer, as a “forgivable loan.”
48. The law school’s settlement to Professor Mullenix in 2011 triggered an Open
Records Act request by three of her colleagues. This Open Records Act request
revealed that Dean Sager had made large sum “forgivable loans” in amounts
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 to approximately 20 male members of the
UT faculty, that were not disclosed to the faculty.
49. After disclosure of the forgivable loans through the Open Records Act request,
the Budget Committee in coordination and approval of Dean Farnsworth, in
reporting annual faculty salaries, determined to amortize the forgivable loans
to these male faculty members over varying periods of years.
50. Because Professor Mullenix had received her settlement in the form of a
“forgivable loan,” in reporting faculty salaries in its annual salary arrays, UT
Law unilaterally decided to amortize Professor Mullenix’s $250,000 settlement
amount over ten years in $25,000 amounts that were added to Professor
Mullenix’s reported salary each year, though the actual salary she received
was less.
51. That unilateral decision to amortize Professor Mullenix’s Equal Pay Act
settlement allowed UT Law to falsely inflate Professor Mullenix’s salary by
$25,000 every year through 2021 and falsely make it appear that Professor
Mullenix’s salary was higher in the salary array than the salary she actually
received each year.
52. Indeed, UT Law maintains several different salary arrays for the purpose of
inflating Professor Mullenix’s salary through amortization, or improperly
understating salaries of several faculty members by failure to include
numerous and various “special deals,” which will be addressed below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
53. In December 2011, Dean Sager stepped down. In 2012 Dean Ward Farnsworth
was selected as the new dean of UT law school.
54. In 2013, two years after Professor Mullenix’s Equal Pay Act settlement, the
Texas Attorney General’s Office determined that Dean Sager’s forgivable loan
program was improper.
55. In December 2013 Professor Mullenix’s attorney was notified by the UT Law
Foundation’s outside tax counsel, Vinson & Elkins, that due to the
determination by the Attorney General about the forgivable loans, the Law
School Foundation had rescinded all forgivable loans, which included Professor
Mullenix’s settlement.
56. Professor Mullenix was informed that her forgivable loan would be reported to
the IRS as income in 2010 and that Professor Mullenix was responsible for
paying all back taxes, interest, and penalties on the rescinded forgivable loan.
57. Due to the improper way UT Law structured the $250,000 payment of her
Equal Pay Act claim as a forgivable loan, Professor Mullenix was forced to file
amended tax returns for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Consequently, in 2014,
Professor Mullenix was required to pay thousands of dollars in tax penalties
and for accountant fees.
58. Because Professor Mullenix and her counsel had objected to her Equal Pay Act
settlement in the form of a forgivable loan and the Foundation’s rescission and
tax consequences, Professor Mullenix requested that Dean Farnsworth
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
reimburse her for the tax penalties and CPA fees she incurred because of the
law school’s actions.
59. In December 2016, UT Law agreed to pay Professor Mullenix $16,000 to
reimburse her for the fees and penalties they caused, but only if she signed
another general release of all claims to date.
60. UT’s General Counsel Jeff Graves repeatedly made it clear to Professor
Mullenix that UT law would not reimburse her tax penalty expenses and CPA
fees unless she signed a waiver of all claims.
61. Under protest about signing a waiver of all claims, and in order to receive a
reimbursement after several years, Professor Mullenix signed the agreement
and release of claims on December 19, 2016.
62. Because the reimbursement agreement did not increase her salary to parity
with Professor Bone, the day after she signed that reimbursement agreement,
Professor Mullenix continued to be paid less than her male colleagues.
63. This gap has continued to grow larger every year since.
C. The Budget Committee review process: how faculty salary and annual
raises are determined by the Dean of UT Law based on recommendations
from the Budget Committee.
64. The Dean annually appoints seven or more faculty members to the Budget
Committee. Its function is to conduct annual performance review of the tenure
and tenure-track faculty. The Budget Committee is advisory to the dean.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
65. After a rule was passed by Regents of the University of Texas, the Budget
Committee also assumed the responsibility for conducting mandatory six-year
post-tenure reviews of faculty members and giving a separate rating for it.
66. Faculty members may request to serve on the Budget Committee, but Dean
Farnsworth ultimately selects the faculty to serve on the committee.
67. In September 2012, at Professor Mullenix’s first meeting with Dean
Farnsworth, she requested to be placed on the Budget Committee. She
explained to Dean Farnsworth that given her long tenure at the law school,
her lengthy career, and her knowledge of compensation issues, she wanted to
serve on the committee.
68. Dean Farnsworth ignored her request to serve on the Budget Committee and
instead put Professor Mullenix on the newly created computer committee, an
area in which Professor Mullenix had no knowledge, experience, or expertise.
69. According to Dean Farnsworth he selects faculty members for the Budget
Committee who are the “strongest . . . performing members of the faculty.”
Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 138:2-3. He also indicated that he selects faculty
to serve on the Budget Committee “whose judgments I think will be valuable
to me.” Farnsworth Dep. 46:7-8.
70. The Budget Committee, excluding Ex Officio members Dean Farnsworth and
Associate Dean Robert Chesney, has had between seven and ten members.
Since 2015, there have never been more than four women on the Budget
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Committee in a single year. Further, every single year, women have comprised
less than half the committee.
71. Since Dean Farnsworth became Dean, he has repeatedly appointed several
faculty members, including Professors Bob Bone, Steve Goode, Lynn Baker,
Charles Silver, Angie Littwin, Willy Forbath, Susie Morse, Tom McGarity,
Jordan Steiker, Sean Williams, and Jay Westbrook.
72. Every faculty member subject to review is required to submit to the Budget
Committee every January an annual report of their publications in the last
calendar year and a statement of their service.
73. The Budget Committee Chair obtains from the Student Affairs office each
research faculty members’ numerical teaching evaluations from the prior
calendar year.
74. After receiving this information, the Budget Committee Chair prepares a
binder containing that data on each faculty member.
75. The Budget Committee Chair also compiles a running list of each faculty
member’s publications for the preceding six years.
76. Each year from February through May, the Budget Committee sits collectively
to evaluate each individual faculty member’s performance in three different
areas: (1) scholarship, (2) teaching, and (3) service.
77. Each committee member is provided a binder which includes:
• a professor’s current total compensation along with the year they
graduated law school;
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
• a scatterplot showing the total compensation of a professor compared
with their total years teaching;
• the chairs and professorships each professor may have been awarded;
• a table with the “mean” teaching evaluation which is weighted by
“taking the ‘Professor’ rating mean for each course taught during the
specified period and multiplying it by the number of survey respondents
for each course, then adding those numbers and dividing by the total
number of survey respondents” (2019-20 Salary Binder D-0036296);
• a table showing the “mean of means” which “is calculated by taking the
‘Professor’ rating mean for each course taught during the specified
period, then determining the mean of those means” (2019-20 Salary
Binder D-0036296);
• A “Summary by Class Size, Type” chart and bar graph showing the
mean, median, means of means for all courses, courses with under and
over 20 students, and seminars;
• A table listing each professor, semester taught, the course code of the
course taught over a specified period, the number of surveys submitted,
enrollment in class, the total respondents who rated a professor from
very unsatisfied to excellent, the number of total responses, the total
score for the professor, and the mean;
• Each professor’s “Budget Committee Submission” listing scholarship
both published and forthcoming, awards/grants, any additional
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
information about teaching, and service done for the law school,
university, bar, and academic field and/or public interest;
• For each professor a table showing the courses taught and the
professor’s ratings, averages, median, means of means and bar graph of
that information is provided for the specific look-back period.
78. The Budget Committee discusses and rates each professor as baseline, above
baseline, below baseline, or baseline plus/minus.
79. After reviewing each faculty’s member’s performance for the preceding
calendar year, the Budget Committee members, like former Chair Professor
Baker, report, “there’s a holistic component to the final aspect of the process in
the years that I’ve been on the committee, and part of what is looked at at that
point in the process is whether something looks to be out of alignment. And so
adjustments will be made in that sense to minimize or reduce or alleviate
things like that.” Baker Dep. 149:3-9 (emphasis added).
80. Although the Budget Committee members in their depositions described this
second “holistic” review, as “based upon these three criteria but taking them
in a holistic way” (Bone Dep. 173:3-4) and “there can be a host of factors . . .
looking at spatial representation . . . and how at a given point in time people
are appearing compared to one another in proximity” (Baker Dep. 149:13-17),
though none could explain or describe specifically how the Budget Committee
conducts this “holistic” review, or what standards it applies in making
“holistic” appraisals.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
81. However, not every Budget Committee member agrees or is aware that there
is a holistic assessment. Professor Forbath’s belief even though he was on the
committee is that “it wasn’t the business of the committee to make holistic
assessments of colleagues” (Forbath Dep. 118:10-11), Professor McGarity, a
former chair and repeat budget committee member stated that the review was
“not holistic over their entire careers. No, we don’t do that” (McGarity Dep.
88:17-18).
82. No Budget Committee member could explain what materials – such as a CV –
that the Committee reviews in making this second global “holistic” appraisal,
and as shown above the Budget Committee members could not say for sure
whether there was a holistic assessment.
83. The performance standards provided to each faculty member in August 2013
make no mention of such a “holistic” review in addition to the annual review.
This subjective holistic review is an evaluation process created by some Budget
Committee members.
84. The “holistic” review performed by the Budget Committee is not disclosed as a
part of the review process.
85. After discussing each faculty member’s annual performance and (some)
considering a holistic review, the Budget Committee recommends a particular
raise for each faculty member to the Dean.
86. To support the Budget Committee’s recommendations, the Chair of the Budget
Committee can choose to take notes. However, each chair varies in the level of
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
detail the notes contain, which allows a faculty member’s entire performance
to be reduced to few words or completely characterized by a brief statement.
87. For example, as Chair of the Budget Committee in 2018, Professor Lynn Baker
submitted notes to Dean Farnsworth that reduced faculty accomplishments,
like Professor Mullenix’s to “continued strong teaching; publications were all
casenotes and updates, no substantial articles.” Salary Raise Chart and
Committee Notes D-0036733.
88. In contrast, Professor Tom McGarity, Chair of the Budget Committee in 2019
described professors according to the three purported metrics that the
committee evaluated them on. 2019 Committee Notes D-0001770.
89. These notes are furnished to Dean Farnsworth, and then in May and June he
determines pay raises to take effect every September 1st (the beginning of the
university fiscal year).
90. In determining pay raises in May and June after committee deliberations,
Dean Farnsworth relies on the Budget Committee Chair’s notes as well as his
own recollection of the Budget Committee deliberations.
91. In actuality, Dean Farnsworth has an extremely poor memory for budget
committee meetings and proceedings. Indeed, during his deposition, he could
not recall any of the Budget Committee’s discussion of the faculty under review
a meeting held a mere three days before his deposition. Farnsworth Corp. Rep.
Dep. 131:1-8. Dean Farnsworth also had difficulty in even identifying which
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
faculty members were under review at that meeting three days earlier.
Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 122:2-9.
92. Dean Farnsworth’s inability to recall details about the faculty members
discussed in the meetings indicates that he relies heavily on the notes
submitted by the Chair of the Budget Committee.
93. On September 10, 2018, Professor Mullenix met with Dean Farnsworth after
she received the lowest raise out of her cohort. At that meeting, he refused to
acknowledge that he alone sets salaries. Instead, he repeatedly stated that he
deferred to the decisions of the Budget Committee, implying that the Budget
Committee sets pay raises.
94. When Professor Mullenix interviewed Budget Committee members during fall
2018, Budget Committee members stated that they did not set pay raises; that
Dean Farnsworth did. Dean Farnsworth has the final say on what raise each
faculty member will receive in the upcoming academic year, based on the
previous calendar year’s performance.
95. The Dean also determines the raises for each member of the Budget
Committee.
D. Purported Standards for Law School Performance Evaluation for

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty.
96. Faculty salaries and raises at UT Law are not based on a seniority system.
97. Rather, in theory, salaries and compensation are based on a merit system.
98. For merit determinations, faculty members’ annual performance is reviewed
in three categories: research and scholarship; teaching; and service.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
99. In August 2013 the entire faculty was furnished with a memorandum setting
forth “Standards For Law School Performance Evaluation of Tenured and
Tenure-Track Faculty.” Mullenix 002921.
100. These standards were promulgated by a Budget Committee consisting of
Professors Avraham, Baker, Blais, Goode, Lindquist, McGarity, Peroni,
Rabban Steiker, Westbrook, Wagner, Dean Farnsworth (ex officio) and
Chesney (ex officio).
101. The standards indicate that each year every research faculty member is to
submit to the Budget Committee research published in the last calendar year
and a curriculum vitae.
102. The Budget Committee has never collected faculty members’ CVs and therefore
has not that basis for making the “holistic” assessments that it does in the
salary review process, described in the section below. Professor Mullenix has
repeatedly furnished every dean and various Budget Committee members with
her CV, to keep them apprised of her accumulated career accomplishments.
103. The performance standards do not indicate the relative weight the Budget
Committee is to give to each performance category. Budget Committee
members could not and cannot agree on the relative weight to be accorded to
these three performance categories. In their depositions, some Budget
Committee members indicated that the three performance categories were to
be given equal weight, while other Budget Committee members indicated that
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
the most important category was scholarship. Several suggested that service
was to be accorded the least weight.
104. For example, Professor Forbath, who served on the committee, stated that
“both teaching and scholarship was more important than service” (Forbath
Dep. 80:13-14), but when asked to rank them said, “scholarship was first.”
Forbath Dep. 80:21. Professor Bone ranked these three categories similarly,
indicating that “scholarship gets a great deal of weight, teaching gets
considerable weight, perhaps service less so.” Bone Dep. 75:5-7.
105. Professor Peroni, however, thinks that “teaching should be the main focus”
(Peroni Dep. 222:21), while Professor Westbrook thinks “really high or really
low performance in any of those three areas . . . may have more weight than
just a third.” Westbrook Dep. 149:12-15.
106. Regarding service, Dean Farnsworth indicated that the Budget Committee
“tend[ed] to regard service to the law school as the most valuable kind”
(Farnsworth Dep. 177:18-19) rather than any other university or external
service. The written standards do not state this.
107. Rather than applying an objectively agreed upon weight of performance
criteria, individual Budget Committee members instead apply their own
subjective views of what counts as important, and what does not. None of this
is communicated to the faculty at large.
108. The failure to agree on the weight to be given to performance categories has
resulted in inconsistent performance reviews among faculty members. Budget
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Committee members who believe scholarship is the most important
performance category focus exclusively on that, to the denigration of
contributions in the other performance categories.
109. Budget Committee members who believe teaching performance is paramount,
discount faculty members with otherwise weak service or scholarship
performance.
Scholarship:
110. The standards for scholarship state that the Budget Committee “will consider
both the quality and quantity of a faculty member’s scholarship, with the
emphasis placed on the quality.” Standards for Law School Performance
Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Mullenix 002921.
111. “This scholarship may take many forms, including books (as author or editor),
book chapters, articles (printed or online) in law reviews or peer-reviewed
journals in other disciplines, book chapters, treatises, and casebooks. Grants
sought and obtained may also be considered.” Standards for Law School
Performance Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Mullenix
002921.
112. “Except in extraordinary circumstances, the Budget Committee as part of its
review of a faculty member’s scholarship, will not consider CLE materials,
legislative testimony, briefs, blogs, brief essays or articles for the popular
press, or articles posted on SSRN or similar websites, although preparation of
such materials may be considered as part of a faculty member’s service.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Standards for Law School Performance Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-
Track Faculty Mullenix 002921.
113. The Budget Committee reads and reviews only scholarship published in the
previous calendar year. However, it will review a list of a faculty member’s
publications over the past five years to take into account length multi-year
projects such as books. Faculty members are encouraged to report works-in-
progress to the committee.
114. A faculty member’s scholarship is assigned to one Budget Committee member.
All the Budget Committee members do not read each faculty member’s
scholarship, nor does Dean Farnsworth. The Budget Committee then adopts
as its own assessment the review of the single person assigned to read a faculty
member’s submitted publication.
115. The committee member assigned to read the work is also not necessarily in the
same specialty or area of interest as the professor they are reviewing. Further,
committee members can recuse themselves from reading pieces of scholarship
by particular professors. Moreover, there are no rules regarding conflicts of
interest for reading assignments.
116. The Budget Committee does not consider any opinions outside of the Budget
Committee itself on the merits of a piece of faculty scholarship even if there
are such assessments from other professors in that area, judges, or
practitioners. The Budget Committee also does not consider citation counts or
any other indicia of merit regarding a faculty member’s scholarship.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
117. Instead, the assigned committee member presents his or her evaluation of the
publication to the rest of the committee and provides his or her personal
opinion on whether a submitted piece is scholarship or service, how well it is
written, and whether it has merit.
118. The committee then generally relies solely on that one professor’s opinion
about the submitted scholarship.
119. Budget Committee members do not agree with one another as to what
publications should be credited as scholarship.
120. Budget Committee members in the past and present have different opinions
on what counts, which means that whether a scholarly piece of work is
considered meritorious lies solely in the hands of the faculty member
presenting his or her assessment of submitted work.
121. If a professor’s scholarship has been assigned to a committee member that
views the publication not as scholarship but as service, then that committee
member’s judgment will prevail.
122. Professor Mullenix annually writes Supreme Court Previews for publication
by the American Bar Association. These articles are highly regarded and have
even been read by Supreme Court Justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
However, depending on which committee member is assigned to read those
works, the committee variously considers these articles scholarship, not
scholarship, or just service.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
123. Professor McGarity stated that he views Preview articles “at least as
scholarship” (McGarity Dep. 135:7), while Professor Bone views Supreme
Court Preview articles as “service” (Bone Dep. 60:14). A respected external
professor at Emory Law School, Professor Richard Freer, states “it [Preview
articles] is scholarship.” Freer Dep. 48:7.
124. In another instance, Professor McGarity credited articles by Professor
Mullenix and other faculty members published in Jotwell to be scholarship,
but Professor Forbath credited JOTWELL articles as service.
125. Concerning casebook revisions, Professor Goode’s assessment “depends on the
particular revision,” (Goode Dep. 211:8), Professor Baker said that casebook
revisions “almost never” (Baker Dep. 196:17) count as scholarship, and
Professor Forbath said “no, never” (Forbath Dep. 85:17) do they count as
scholarship.
126. However, the written standards state that substantial case revisions count
towards scholarship (D-36801), but members of the Budget Committee could
not come to an agreement about what “substantial” would entail and even
argued about whether a “complete” revision of a casebook was considered a
“substantial” revision. Again, none of this is communicated to the faculty at
large and clarification of faculty submissions is never sought.
127. In assessing scholarship, committee members do not only evaluate the work
based on what should be counted as scholarship, but each member passes
personal judgment on the merits and value of the assigned piece of scholarship.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
128. Professor Bone evaluates “whether somebody has made a significant
contribution, that is to say, advancing the scholarly ball in some fashion.” Bone
Dep. 26:9-11.
129. This means that if Professor Bone does not think a colleague’s work is a
“significant contribution” to their field of expertise, then he would present that
opinion to the budget committee.
130. These personal assessments of quality are made without any regard to whether
the professor reviewing the work has the experience or knowledge about the
field to make the evaluation on whether the publication has made a significant
contribution.
131. Moreover, the Budget Committee makes no effort to screen bias or to place
safeguards to avoid bias from infecting reviewer’s assessments of the quality
of a piece of scholarship.
132. In reality, the inconsistency in application of the scholarship standards creates
disparities in performance evaluations and ultimate decisions about pay
raises.
133. Even a cursory comparison of the salary array for 2018-2019 with the Budget
Committee’s publication list shows that some professors who publish very little
or nothing over a period of several years still received large raises.
134. The Budget Committee’s application of the scholarship standards is greatly
inconsistent across faculty members. The Budget Committee credits some
faculty members for scholarship that the standards explicitly discount, while
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
the Budget Committee excludes the same type of scholarship submitted by
other faculty.
135. Exacerbating this problem is that publications excluded from credit as
scholarship is then not credited as “service,” as the standards indicate.
136. This discounting of publications has certainly been true for Professor Mullenix.
Every year the Budget Committee routinely dismisses a large percentage of
her submitted publications as “not scholarship,” but then does not credit this
work as service in the Chairs’ notes of committee deliberations to the dean by
only sending notes that relay information about Professor Mullenix’s teaching
and scholarship. 2018 Salary Raise Chart and Committee Notes D-0036733.
137. In 2017, Professor Mullenix submitted fourteen publications to the Budget
Committee. These included the complete revision of one casebook; a
substantial revision of a second casebook; a 64+ page completely revised book
chapter; four annual updates to a well-know federal procedure treatise; five
articles on pending Supreme Court cases published in the ABA Preview of
Supreme Court Cases; and two JOTWELL (Federal Courts) articles.
138. Professor Mullenix’s publication records for 2017 consisted of hundreds of
pages of written work product and hundreds of hours of research and writing.
139. The 2018 Budget Committee, reviewing this publication record and in opposite
of the law school’s written standards, disregarded that work and rated
Professor Mullenix as “below baseline.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
140. Instead, Professor Lynn Baker, Chair of the 2017-18 Budget Committee,
explained that the reason for Professor Mullenix’s below baseline rating that
year was “that there was no scholarship submitted that year for our review.”
Baker Dep. 165:17-18.
141. Along with its evaluation of her teaching performance in 2017 (see next) the
Budget Committee deemed her to be a below baseline faculty member, along
with five other faculty members who had no publications and poor teaching
evaluations.
142. Writing to the EEOC to explain Professor Mullenix’s 2017 performance review
that resulted in the faculty’s lowest pay raise, Dean Farnsworth explained: “To
begin with quantity: much of what Professor Mullenix writes is not considered scholarship
at all by the Budget Committee.”
143. Adding insult to injury, he further commented: “Year in and year out, different
reviewers of her scholarship agree about this. They usually find it mediocre.”
144. For comparison, Professor Rabban, in 2017 a male professor and comparator
to Professor Mullenix, submitted a six-page book review as his scholarship for
the Budget Committee to consider.
145. In comparing a six-page book review to Professor Mullenix’s scholarship,
Professor McGarity, a member of the 2017-18 Budget Committee, stated a “six-
page book review is not more than revising several case books and treatise
work.” McGarity Dep. 234:23-25.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
146. The Budget Committee still rated Professor Rabban baseline and Professor
Mullenix below baseline. Professor Rabban received a $10,000 raise that year
and Professor Mullenix received only $1,500.
147. Another male professor, Professor Henry Hu (a Mullenix comparator), did not
publish anything in 2016 or 2017, but stated that he had forthcoming articles.
He was rated baseline and received a $4,000 raise.
148. Professor Lucas Powe, a male professor, submitted a short article in 2018 and
stated he had a forthcoming book. He was rated baseline that year and
received a $3,000 raise.
149. Professor McGarity, another comparator of Professor Mullenix, published
nothing in 2016. In 2017, he wrote one journal article, co-authored another
article with two colleagues, and wrote an op-ed for The American Prospect
magazine. He received one of the highest raises in the amount of $10,000.
150. As evidenced above, the Budget Committee’s process depends solely on the
committee member’s opinions of what is and is not scholarship and those
opinions are wildly inconsistent.
Teaching Performance:
151. The written standards for teaching indicate that a faculty member’s
performance will be evaluated based on numerical and written student
evaluations, as well as other factors such as size of classes and teaching loads.
Track Faculty Mullenix 002922.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
152. The Budget Committee’s assessment of annual teaching performance is highly
inconsistent. Faculty members with exactly the same numerical teaching
evaluations will be reported to the dean in the Chairperson’s notes with
dissimilar rhetorical characterizations.
153. To evaluate teaching, the binder provided to the committee members includes
a table that lists how many classes a professor teaches, how many students are
in each class, and the corresponding student evaluation scores.
154. Some faculty members with high numerical evaluations will be reported as
superior, excellent, or stellar teachers, while disfavored faculty members with
equal or superior numerical ratings will be reported to the dean merely with
the note as “continued good teaching.”
155. The Chairperson’s notes to the dean may highlight and flag a high numerical
teaching evaluation for a favored faculty member, while failing to report the
same or higher numerical evaluations regarding other faculty.
156. This has been true for Professor Mullenix, where Chairperson’s notes report
high teaching numbers for Professors Bone and McGarity, while failing to
report Professor Mullenix’s equally high numerical evaluations.
157. Moreover, the Budget Committee does not read student comments. Professor
Mullenix has received thousands of enthusiastic, positive student written
comments over the course of her long career and continues to do so every
semester. She has annually submitted the written student comments to the
Budget Committee.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
158. In fall 2018 when Professor Mullenix questioned Budget Committee
Chairperson Professor Baker whether she had read the student comments that
Professor Mullenix had submitted, she was told no. Professor Baker stated that
she could not understand why the committee should waste time reading
student comments (even though the standards state that the Budget
Committee does this). Budget Committee Interviews 2018 Mullenix 004342.
159. In 2017, Professor Mullenix taught a large section of first year civil procedure
students with 77 students and a seminar on transnational class actions. The
UT law school numerical evaluation scale rates faculty members from 1 – 5 for
teaching. The average law school faculty numerical teaching score is 4.5, with
faculty members below that considered relatively poor teachers.
160. Professor Mullenix received a 4.7 evaluation in her large civil procedure section
and 5.0 for her seminar, for a combined 2017 teaching score of 4.85. This score
placed her at the top of the law faculty teaching ranks.
161. Nonetheless, in combination with the Budget Committee’s 2017 scholarship
evaluation and her 2017 service evaluation (discussed next), Professor
Mullenix was rated as “below baseline” along with five faculty members who
had no scholarship and relatively poor teaching evaluations.
162. The average teaching evaluation score for UT Law faculty in 2018-2019 was
4.5. Professors with student evaluations below 4.5 were below average
teachers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
163. Professors Henry Hu, Jens Dammann, and David Adelman all had below
average teaching evaluations in 2018 but were recommended for higher raises
than Professor Mullenix in 2019.
Professor Teaching Mean Raise Recommended
Hu, Henry 4.38 $9,000
Dammann, Jens 4.45 $7,500
Adelman, David 3.99 $7,500
Mullenix, Linda 4.69 $7,000
Service:
164. The UT law standards state that faculty members are to make valuable
contributions in service to the law school and university as well as to the larger
legal and educational community. Standards for Law School Performance
Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Mullenix 002922.
165. Listed among the types of service to the law school and the professional
community include, but are not limited to: participating in colloquia and job
talks, commenting on colleagues works in drafts, and mentoring tenure-track
faculty; serving on committees; advising student organizations; directing a
center, program, or organization; acting as a hearing officer; serving on a
dissertation committee; working on admissions and alumni outreach; scholarly
presentations; and participating in CLE programs. Standards for Law School
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Performance Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Mullenix
002922.
166. Examples of service to the larger legal and educational community include law-
reform efforts, which may encompass legislative testimony; working with the
ALI, national or state bar organizations, or legislative groups; authoring pro
bono briefs; serving on the board of national associations and societies;
providing tenure reviews at other universities; participation in conferences at
other universities; serving as a peer reviewer for journals and societies; press
interviews; and providing pro bono or other philanthropic legal service.
Track Faculty Mullenix 002922-23.
167. The Budget Committee inconsistently applies the service standards to
highlight and praise favored faculty and to discredit as poor institutional
citizens disfavored faculty.
168. The Budget Committee and Dean Farnsworth have indicated that it considers
faculty attendance at law school colloquia, as “a big point of faculty life,” (Goode
Dep. 221:5-6) and “the reason why I value my colleagues” (Baker Dep. 178:8),
as well as drawing Board sessions to be the most important part of faculty
service.
169. The standards nowhere state that this is the most important criterion of
service. In Chair McGarity’s 2020 Budget Committee notes to Dean
Farnsworth the notes make special note of the faculty members who routinely
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
attended colloquia and Drawing Board sessions, and faculty members who did
not. In his opinion, “colloquia and drawing board luncheons, two of the
important ones I think, particularly the drawing board” (McGarity Dep. 172:1-
3).
170. At least three quarters of the faculty do not attend law school workshops or
colloquia. However, many of these faculty still receive high raises, including
Professors Mark Ascher, Charles Silver, Angela Littwin, Sean Williams, Lynn
Baker, Mechele Dickerson, and Michael Sturley.
171. Budget Committee members do not agree on how to evaluate different types of
service, despite both internal service to UT Law and external service to the
profession being considered equal in the UT Law written standards.
172. Professor Bone considers “external service and internal service equally,” (Bone
Dep. 203:3-4), while Professor McGarity considers “service to the law school
may be…more heavily weighted,” (McGarity Dep. 19:4-5), and Professor
Westbrook contends that “it depends on the quality and importance of a
particular service” (Westbrook Dep. 150:9-10).
173. Professor Baker includes an additional, unwritten consideration to the
assessment of a faculty member’s institutional service: namely, collegiality.
Her “personal view is that collegiality is part of service.” Baker Dep. 178:4-5.
However, collegiality is not part of the written UT performance standards.
174. Professor Robert Peroni, in his deposition, affirmed that in his experience of
many years of service on the Budget Committee, the Budget Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
deliberations often were infected with comments that had nothing to do with
the annual performance because “they would bring up things from past years
. . . it was totally inappropriate” (Peroni Dep. 69:14-15), including negative
comments about Professor Mullenix like referring to her as “being kind of a
complainer” (Peroni Dep. 69:24-25).
175. Moreover, at UT law school, this “collegiality factor” appears to only apply to
women who have complained of gender discrimination. In the over 40,000
pages of documents the University has produced, lack of collegiality has only
come up in relation to Professor Susan Klein and Professor Mullenix.
176. Specifically, Dean Farnsworth told Professor Susan Klein that she received the
lowest raise of her career in 2015 because of a lack of collegiality. This was
shortly after Professor Klein had questioned Dean Farnsworth about why more
female faculty did not receive FII funding. In 2021, the Budget Committee
gave Professor Klein a “baseline minus” rating due to a “serious breach of . . .
collegiality.”
177. Despite all the “difference of opinion as to how important, how much weight to
give, that sort of thing” (Westbrook Dep. 148:21-23) about what counts and
what is considered to have merit, there are no safeguards to prevent the system
being applied in a discriminatory and retaliatory way.
178. Faculty members who do not sit on the Budget Committee have no idea that
their annual evaluations are being negatively appraised for the failure to
attend colloquia and Drawing Board sessions, or for collegiality reasons, and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
that the Budget Committee considers attendance at law school colloquia to be
the most important “service” contribution.
179. To the extent that attendance at these law school functions has become the
most important component of service -- to the diminution of all other forms of
service -- even this criterion is inconsistently applied.
180. For example, faculty members who have been habitual attendees at the
colloquia have received below baseline evaluations, including Professors
Ganor, Adelman, Weinberg, and Churgin. On the other hand, several faculty
members with above baseline or baseline ratings have not been penalized for
routine non-attendance. These include Professors Albert, Baker, Peroni,
Silver, Steiker, Dickerson, and Sage.
181. Of the 24 examples of service that the Budget Committee lists in its standards
for annual performance review, Professor Mullenix has engaged in 21 of these
activities. Yet, these accomplishments are left out or diminished in the Budget
Committee’s reviews and the Chair’s notes to the dean about Professor
Mullenix’s annual performance.
182. In Professor Mullenix’s 2017 annual report to the 2018 Budget Committee,
Professor Mullenix enumerated, in detail, 42 explicit examples of service to the
law school and larger profession encompassed by and listed in the performance
standards.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
183. Despite listing 42 examples of service performed in review year 2017, Professor
Baker’s notes to Dean Farnsworth as Chair made no mention of these service
contributions.
184. Further, In Professor Mullenix’s 2017 annual report to the 2018 Budget
Committee, she listed five published articles in the ABA Preview of Supreme
Court Cases and two published JOTWELL (Federal Courts) articles. In
rejecting these publications as scholarship, Professor Baker’s notes to the Dean
also did not list these seven articles (and considerable work that went into
them), as service.
185. Additionally, Professor Mullenix writes and publishes articles in The Preview
of Supreme Court cases every year. Every year the Budget Committee
discounts these articles as “not scholarship,” but then does not credit these
publications as service (despite the standards indicating that they are to be
credited as service).
186. Nonetheless, in combination with the Budget Committee’s 2017 scholarship
evaluation and her 2017 teaching evaluation, along with no recognition of her
service to the law school or profession, Professor Mullenix was rated as “below
baseline” along with five faculty members who had no scholarship and
relatively poor teaching evaluations.
187. Consequently, despite the submission of an extensive performance record,
Professor Mullenix received the lowest pay raise of those who received raises
on the faculty.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Dean Farnsworth’s Determination of Salaries:
188. The 2018 Budget Committee recommended to Dean Farnsworth a $4,000 pay
raise to Professor Mullenix for her below baseline evaluation.
189. When Dean Farnsworth returned to the Budget Committee with his proposed
raises after all deliberations, he reduced Professor Mullenix’s pay raise to
$3,000.
190. Against Budget Committee recommendations, Dean Farnsworth further
reduced Professor Mullenix 2018 pay raise by an additional 50%, down to
$1,500.
191. When Professor Mullenix interviewed all the 2018 Budget Committee
members in fall 2018, no one knew that she had received the lowest pay raise
on the faculty; no one knew it was $1,500, and no one said they had advised or
authorized that pay raise.
192. In their subsequent depositions, Budget Committee members had difficulties
in explaining how Professor Mullenix could have received a $1,500 pay raise
based on her 2017 performance record, yet they nonetheless defended the
Budget Committee operations as fair and conducted with integrity.
193. For professors who make representations about offers from other institutions,
the Budget Committee again has an ill-defined methodology. If a professor
approaches Dean Farnsworth or the Budget Committee in the fall “with an
offer from another school . . . in the spring – so we may say, okay, you have this
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
range to work with or we recommend this range, Dean.” McGarity Dep. 93:3-
7.
194. The committee decides on the range based on “how valued the faculty member
is . . . sometimes we get that scatter plot and we see where that’s going to put
that person with respect to other colleagues that might be in his or her range
on the scatter plot and see . . . how far out our range that’s going to put this
person.” McGarity Dep. 43:22 – 44:2.
195. “And the dean of course takes some number out of that range . . . and we don’t
know . . . what that number is.” McGarity Dep. 43:15-17.
196. The Dean then, “makes that recommendation to . . . whoever, and in the spring
we’ll know that and we’ll take that into account as we’re looking at other
people’s salary.” McGarity Dep. 93:7-10.
197. For example, in 2019 Professor Richard Albert reported that he received an
offer of employment from the University of Virginia. Professor Albert did not
provide the offer letter, nor did the Budget Committee request any supporting
evidence.
198. The Budget Committee in his case did recommend a substantial raise in 2019
based on this alleged but unsubstantiated offer.
199. As a result, Professor Albert received a raise of $43,250 for the 2020-21 school
year noted as “equity and retention” despite already being the recipient of
$12,000 in FII funds as well. Professor Albert began his tenure at UT Law in
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2018 and began his teaching career in 2003. Three years after arriving at UT
law, he is now one of the highest paid members of the faculty.
200. Equity and retention raises creating a disparity within a cohort is not a new
problem for UT Law.
201. The Budget Committee “did several equity raises right after the end of the
Sager years” (McGarity Dep. 94:1-2).
202. The committee “look[ed] at female faculty members and adjusting their pay
upward for what we regarded on the budget committee as equity reasons
because it seemed like over the past they had not received what we now think
they were entitled to.” McGarity Dep. 94:5-9. This did not fix the problem
though, as noted by the continued disparity in pay between male and female
faculty.
203. Most recently, UT Law may have utilized the University Faculty Investment
Initiative program (discussed below) as a way to produce equity raises.
Professor McGarity, a repeat Chair of the Budget Committee, suggested that
in fact “the dean thought or said that the university thought that equity ought
to be a consideration . . . I think we may have used equity as a consideration
there as well.” McGarity Dep. 95:4-6. Again, this approach to equity concerns
did not fix the problem.
204. Instead, UT Law’s implementation of the Faculty Investment Initiative raises
and “equity and retention” raises has created further disparities within faculty
cohorts. The implementation of these initiatives has caused salary dislocation
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
for several female professors and in particular, for Professor Mullenix, whose
salary has progressively moved further down the salary array (discussed
below).
E. Further examples of Dean Farnsworth and the Budget Committee’s

inconsistent application and implementation of performance reviews
and the salary dislocations caused by the University’s Faculty
Investment initiatives in 2015 and 2018.
205. As described above, Dean Farnsworth and the Budget Committee do not
consistently apply and implement the standards of performance review. In
many cases, including for Professor Mullenix, there is no discernible
relationship between a professor’s Budget Committee evaluation or baseline
rating, and the amount of the raise that professor receives from Dean
Farnsworth.
206. For example, according to the Spring 2021 Budget Committee’s ratings for pay
raises in fascial year 2021-22, Professors Mullenix, Peroni, Westbrook, Steiker,
Rabban, Baker, and Silver were all given baseline ratings. Yet their raises
range from the low end of $12,000 for Professors Mullenix and Peroni to
$18,000 for Professors Westbrook and Rabban to $20,000 for Professors Baker
and Silver and $22,000 for Professor Steiker.
207. According to the 2021 ratings, Professors Bone, McGarity, and Goode received
baseline plus ratings, but received $18,000, $20,000, and $12,000 raises
respectively, which are the same amounts that baseline-rated professors
received.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
208. According to the 2021 ratings, Professors Deigh, Williams, Spindler, Ascher,
and Klein all received baseline minus ratings. Nevertheless, Williams,
Spindler, and Ascher received $15,000 raises, while Klein received only
$10,000 and Deigh received only $3,430.
209. From 2017 until 2019, and then in 2021, most of the faculty members on the
Budget Committee received pay raises of at least $10,000 and are among the
highest pay raises given, regardless of their performance record.
210. The law school’s pay raise system has been further disrupted and dislocated
by two separate rounds of funding from the University’s Faculty Investment
Initiative. The first round of FII funding took effect in 2015.
211. The purported purpose of FII funds were to retain faculty at risk of being lured
to other institutions. Yet in implementing the FII program at the law school,
the Budget Committee involved in selecting FII recipients, as well as Dean
Farnsworth, have made no effort to actually ascertain whether the recipients
were in any danger of being recruited by another institution, or had any in-
hand offers from another institution.
212. In his deposition Dean Farnsworth indicated that in selecting faculty members
to be awarded guaranteed multi-year FII funds, “committee members did not
feel they were in a position to be sure to know who was likely to be recruited
by another school” (Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 17:11-13), so they did not focus
on discussions of retention and which faculty members were most likely to be
lured to other institutions (the purpose of the FII program).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
213. Instead, Dean Farnsworth indicated that the Budget Committee felt “more
comfortable simply evaluating who the strongest members of the faculty were.”
Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 17:13-14. Dean Farnsworth declined to define how
the Budget Committee made these determinations. As detailed above, the
Budget Committee members do not agree on the factors that make a faculty
member’s performance strong.
214. To decide on who would receive funding, “the Budget Committee did not make
a collective recommendation to the Dean. . .” Goode Dep. 187:7-8. Instead, “the
dean asked for the input and the dean ultimately made the decision” (Goode
Dep. 187:15), which matches Professor Baker’s reasoning for her receipt of the
raise that “in the judgment of the dean that I fit the description that was being
provided.” Baker Dep. 145:4-5 (emphasis added).
215. In 2015, for the first round of FII funding which included a 5-year commitment,
Professor Farnsworth alleges he asked the members of the Budget Committee
who “the best people to award the money to in terms of who not only was . . .
the strongest, but who would most appropriately benefit from a raise.”
Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 141:16-19.
216. In implementing both rounds of the FII program, Dean Farnsworth and the
Budget Committee declined to apply the University’s objective criteria for
satisfying the goal of this program (retention of faculty at risk for recruitment
to other institutions), and instead substituted its own opinion of which faculty
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
members were the “strongest.” In doing so, the Dean and the Budget
Committee did not act in line with the intention of the University FII program.
217. In the first round of FII funding in 2015, Dean Farnworth selected seven law
faculty members to receive guaranteed pay raises in amount ranging from
$10,000 to $12,000 annually for five years, for a total of $50,000 to $60,000
each.
218. These annual pay raises were not freestanding one-time annual bonuses, but
rather raises added to the faculty member’s base pay each year, thus
compounding the effect of FII raises over the five-to-eight-year periods for FII
awards.
219. These annual FII pay raises have been awarded without regard to actual
annual performance or merit. It does not matter what an FII recipient does by
way of performance in any year; he or she is guaranteed FII pay raises.
220. The implementation of the first round of FII funding had an immediate and
dislocating impact on Professor Mullenix’s placement in the salary array. It
elevated three faculty members above Professor Mullenix, with lesser career
accomplishments, to salaries above hers in the salary array (Professor Baker,
Dickerson, and Wagner).
221. In the same time frame these professors were receiving annual guaranteed
$12,000 pay raises for five years, Professor Mullenix’s salary was further
deflated by her 2018 raise of $1,500, the lowest raise of those given, followed
in successive years by other unjustified low pay raises.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
222. The seven FII first-round recipients were Professor Baker, Dickerson, Wagner,
Littwin, Laurin, Franklin, and Fishkin. After receiving multiple years of FII
pay raises of $12,000 annually, as well as $100,000 hiring bonuses each,
Professors Franklin and Fishkin (a partnered couple) left to join the law faculty
at U.C.L.A. in 2021.
223. The faculty at large was not informed about the 2015 FII program in advance
nor did the faculty have any input into selection of the FII recipients.
224. Dean Farnsworth did consult with the then-2015 Budget Committee and asked
the committee members to vote on likely recipients. Dean Farnsworth, not
revealing the results of this secret ballot, then chose the recipients of FII funds.
225. Dean Farnsworth reported information about the FII recipients to the faculty
in August 2015.
226. The university authorized a second round of FII funding in 2018, FII (2). The
FII(2) round of funding guaranteed raises of $10,000-$15,000 to faculty
recipients for three years, without regard to annual performance or merit.
227. Most of the former and current members of the Budget Committee are
recipients of the Faculty Investment Initiative rounds (1) and (2). Some
Budget Committee members have been recipients of both rounds of FII
funding, guaranteeing very large pay raises for those faculty over a period of
eight years – without regard to merit or performance.
228. Unlike the first round of FII funding in 2015, when the second round of FII
funding was authorized in 2018, Dean Farnsworth consulted with the Budget
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Committee members and asked each to select faculty members they thought
should receive FII funding. Dean Farnsworth conducted this survey by secret
ballot. After receiving all the faculty nominees by secret ballot, Dean
Farnsworth then chose which faculty members would receive FII(2)
guaranteed funding.
229. Dean Farnsworth stated that the Budget Committee submitted anonymous
ballots for who should be awarded the second round of FII funding, there was
a discussion about the candidates, then the committee chose the final list,
which Farnsworth accepted because the “recommendations were reached in a
very careful and responsible fashion.” Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 133:4.
230. According to the tally of votes, Professor Derek Jinks received 8 votes, the
second highest amount, and but he did not receive the guaranteed raise.
231. In reality, the Budget Committee was asked to choose faculty members without
any guidelines and without regard to merit.
232. For example, the committee was either asked to create “just a list of who we
each thought . . . we were supposed to identify 20 people that we thought would
– were worthy” (Baker Dep. 199:9-11), or “I do have . . . a strong recollection
that . . . we weren’t told to vote for 22 people” (Forbath Dep. 28:3-5), or they
were told “to list I want to say seven, eight or nine people” (Goode Dep. 197:5-
7).
233. The committee was then supposed to choose “people whom we thought whose
departure would be a hurt to the law school” (Forbath Dep. 28:13-15), or they
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
were supposed to choose “people who are viewed as important and productive
and at risk for retention” (Baker Dep. 208:5-6), or the purpose was “to try and
equalize or become more equal in terms of the salaries the faculty received.”
Bone Dep. 189:6-9.
234. Then again, Professor Forbath considered “individuals’ . . . contributions to the
intellectual life of the school . . . individuals’ sort of academic reputations . . .
in the scholarly worlds that I was familiar with” (Forbath Dep. 29:5-10), while
Professor Baker considered “people who are viewed as important and
productive and at risk for retention” (Baker Dep. 208:5-6), despite Dean
Farnsworth claiming the purpose was “to provide additional raises to its
strongest faculty members.” Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 115:12-13.
235. In other words, there were no set standards, no set criteria, no set guidelines
regarding how to award these substantial guaranteed raises that would be
provided regardless of the performance standards that allegedly applied to
everyone.
236. For example, Professor Littwin, who was on the Budget Committee and
received FII funding in both rounds, published just one journal article in 2016
and nothing in 2017, yet she receives a guaranteed $12,000 FII raise each year.
237. Professor Bone, another member of the Budget Committee, who received a FII
raise in the second round, published just one article and one update in 2019,
but was still guaranteed a $10,000 raise.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
238. As a consequence of Dean Farnsworth’s selection from the secret balloting,
about one-third of the faculty (or 21 members) received guaranteed FII
funding. Currently, 18 members continue to receive this funding.
239. Dean Farnsworth, in conjunction with the Budget Committee, decided not to
tell the rest of the faculty of the FII(2) funding and the newly appointed
recipients.
240. In his deposition Dean Farnsworth stated that he made this decision because
he thought disclosure of this second round of FII funding, and the newly added
group of faculty recipients, would “cause morale issues for other faculty
members” (Farnsworth Dep. 148:20-21) if this information was disclosed.
241. The Budget Committee members did not protest Dean Farnsworth’s request
that this information not be disclosed to the two-thirds of the faculty who are
not recipients of FII funding.
242. This agreement not to disclose to the entire faculty the second round of FII
funding was not surprising in that almost all the recipients were members of
the Budget Committee who had been asked by Dean Farnsworth to vote by
secret ballot on who to designate the recipients.
243. The recipients of FII funding, and the guaranteed amounts of annual pay
raises for three years are: Professors Bone ($10,000); McGarity ($10,000);
Westbrook ($10,000); Rabban ($10,000): Dickerson ($12,000); Baker ($12,000);
Wagner ($12,000); Steiker ($10,000); Silver ($10,000); Forbath ($10,000);
Golden ($15,000); Chesney ($12,000);Wasserman ($12,000); Laurin ($12,000);
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Bracha ($15,000); Morse ($12,000); Vladeck ($12,000); Albert ($10,000);
Fishkin ($13,000); Franklin ($13,000); and Littwin ($12,000). D-008642
244. Every one of the recipients for FII (2) funding—except for Professor Vladeck,
Dickerson, and Wasserman—has served on Dean Farnsworth’s Budget
Committees and have advised him on who to award FII rounds of funding.
245. Professor Vladeck, another FII(2) recipient, has been appointed to the 2021-22
Budget Committee.
246. The implementation of the FII funding has caused severe dislocations in the
salary array that are not justified by any merit system. These dislocations
could have been remedied by providing equity pay raises to faculty dislocated
by the FII funds, but Dean Farnsworth and the Budget Committee did not
consider the dislocating effects of implementation of the FII program.
247. Professor McGarity seemed to acknowledge the dislocation effect of the FII
raises. He noted that there was a dislocation of specific professors within their
cohort “who didn’t get [FII] that were good-performing faculty members . . .
now these raises tended to separate folks that . . . [the budget committee]
thought about, well, when we bump somebody we should bump them up a little
more, given our annual amount of budget that we have to work with.” McGarity
Dep. 210:11-16.
248. Nonetheless, the Budget Committee did nothing to remedy faculty members
adversely affected by the FII dislocation effect, including the effect on Professor
Mullenix’s salary.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
249. The FII program has resulted in the advancement of salaries without merit
justification, based on undefined notions of whom the Budget Committee and
Dean Farnsworth considered to be the “strongest” faculty members.
250. The dislocation effects of the FII funding rounds have certainly been true for
Professor Mullenix. Since implementation of the FII program in 2015,
Professors Dickerson, Baker, Wagner, Steiker, and Silver, have displaced
Professor Mullenix, in the salary rankings.
251. Of note, four of Professor Mullenix’s comparators have been awarded FII(2)
guaranteed funding, but Professor Mullenix has not: Professors Bone,
McGarity, Westbrook, and Rabban.
252. The 2018 Budget Committee’s assessment of Professor Mullenix’s performance
had an especially adverse impact on her compensation that has extended
several years beyond 2018 and into 2022.
253. As explained above, those inconsistent deliberations resulted in a below
baseline assessment and the lowest pay raise of those given on the faculty. In
addition, this was the same review cycle in which the Budget Committee
secretly voted on faculty members to receive FII(2) raises over the next three
years.
254. The award of FII(2) guaranteed funding to Professor Mullenix’s comparators
has further widened the disparity gap.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
255. Professor Mullenix, despite her comparable merits in teaching, service, and
scholarship, was the only faculty member in her cohort not to be given an FII(2)
award.
256. In comparison, Professors Bone, McGarity, Westbrook and Rabban, with
equivalent or lesser records were given FII(2) raises, which allowed the pay
disparity between Professor Mullenix and her comparators to widen even more
during the three year time period.
257. This gap is more insidious for Professors like Mullenix given that this
guaranteed raise through the FII has implications beyond the time period in
which they are allocated. At the end of the FII period, professors will move
forward with an inflated salary, while non-recipients cannot bridge this gap
through normal raises, which cements the disparity over time.
258. Professor Mullenix did not learn of the FII program or its implementation at
the law school until this was revealed through discovery in this litigation. The
salary arrays that Professor Mullenix received did not provide any information
about the FII program or who was receiving FII funding.
259. The FII program not only has created unfair, severe dislocations in the salary
array but has divided the faculty into faculty members who are subjected to
annual performance reviews based on merit and those who are not.
260. Conducting performance reviews for the FII recipients is rendered
meaningless because they are guaranteed certain raises over periods ranging
from three to six years.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
261. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the faculty who are not beneficiaries of FII funding
are subjected to annual performance reviews that have consequences for their
pay raises.
262. Similar to the implementation of the FII(1) raises, the Budget Committee and
Dean Farnsworth did not investigate whether any of the designated recipients
were at actual risk of recruitment by another institution. Indeed, several
recipients testified that they were not.
263. Because almost all the FII recipients with a few exceptions are Budget
Committee members who advised Dean Farnsworth on who to award the FII
funds to, these Budget Committee members have received a benefit not based
on their annual faculty performance. Indeed, several recipients have had scant
publication records during the FII years, teaching performance records with
lower evaluations than other non-FII colleagues, or service records that are
comparably less than many of their non-FII colleagues.
F. Other discriminatory practices by Dean Farnsworth and the Budget

Committee in setting compensation.
264. Dean Farnsworth and the Budget Committee routinely engage in various
discriminatory practices that have adversely affected Professor Mullenix’s
compensation and that of other faculty members.
265. Dean Farnsworth and the Budget Committee make it extremely difficult to
obtain accurate information about pay raises and comparable faculty
compensation. The inability to obtain accurate salary information frustrates
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
the ability of any faculty member, including Professor Mullenix, to conduct an
informed salary discussion with the dean.
266. As indicated above, in 2011 Dean Sager refused to disclose salary information
to Professor Mullenix for over six months and when he did provide salary
information during her settlement conference, he failed to disclose the
important information about the large forgivable loans to nearly twenty male
colleagues.
267. Between 2013 and 2017 the Budget Committee attached a copy of the salary
array to its annual memorandum to the faculty concerning pay raises. In 2017,
the Budget Committee announced it would stop sending the salary array to
faculty members.
268. After 2017, a faculty member who requests to see the salary array will not be
sent a copy by email. Faculty members are required to make an appointment
with the dean’s assistant and may only review the salary array in the dean’s
office. Faculty members are not permitted to make a copy of the salary array
or to make cell phone copies of the salary array.
269. The salary array furnished to faculty members in the dean’s office – under
supervision – consists of a single column of faculty member names, organized
alphabetically, with each members’ salary.
270. A faculty member examining this salary array has no way of knowing the
amount of a pay raise that any faculty member has received from the preceding
year.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
271. Because faculty members are furnished with a copy of the salary array in
alphabetical order, and not the Excel spread sheet which it based upon, a
faculty member cannot know the relative arrangement of faculty salaries from
highest to lowest.
272. The dean’s office and the law school CFO prepare several different salary
arrays containing a variety of different information. Faculty members are not
aware of these different salary arrays and the existence of additional
information about the special deals and supplemental compensation that many
faculty members received annually.
273. The salary array furnished to faculty members contains hidden columns not
available to faculty members, which are only accessible to persons with access
to the original Excel spreadsheet on which the redacted salary array appears.
274. Dean Farnsworth and CFO Jeff Toreki admitted in deposition that the CFO
prepared several different versions of the salary array in any particular fiscal
year. Dean Farnsworth stated that salary arrays were “put together a different
version for different purposes” (Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 164:21) without
explaining what those different purposes are, while Jeff Torecki, former Chief
Financial Officer of the law school indicated that he was asked to prepare
salary arrays with “different information.” Torecki Corp. Rep. Dep. 111:10.
275. In several years, upon her requests, Professor Mullenix has been furnished
with multiple conflicting versions of the salary array including, “a summation
. . . from the master spreadsheet” (Torecki Corp. Rep. Dep. 107:20-21), the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
entire salary array, a salary array showing “total compensation” (Torecki Corp.
Rep. Dep. 109:4) and sometimes a spreadsheet listing “people with total
compensation higher than Professor Mullenix’s” (Torecki Corp. Rep. Dep.
109:4-5).
276. When Professor Mullenix asked UT Law to explain the conflicting information
on different salary arrays, neither Dean Farnsworth nor Jeff Toreki could offer
an explanation. In fact, when asked why there were so many different salary
arrays, Torecki stated “I don’t know,” (Torecki Corp. Rep. Dep. 113:9) and Dean
Farnsworth stated “I’m not aware there are different versions given to
different people.” Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 167:7-8.
277. The unredacted salary arrays indicate that many faculty members have special
deals and salary supplements that are not reported to the general faculty.
Many of these faculty supplements are granted in perpetuity, or for periods of
several years.
278. Some recipients of special deal annual supplements have no idea why they are
receiving these additional monies. For example. Professor Forbath annually
receives a $25,000 supplement, but in deposition, when asked what that was
for, he testified, “I don’t know.” Forbath Dep. 23:15.
279. Among the higher salary supplements are six faculty members receiving
annual “housing allowances:” Professor Sager ($25,000); Professor Sage
($60,000 housing allowance); Professor Forbath ($25,000); Professor Hu ($46,
653), Professor Jinks ($50,000 annually); and Professor Cohen ($25,000).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Professor Sager and Cohen, a married couple, collect $50,000 annually as a
housing supplement in addition to their substantial salaries.
280. Professors Sager and Cohen joined the UT law faculty in 2002. Over the span
of twenty years, Professors Sager and Cohen have collected $1,000,000 in
housing allowance money. Professor Sager relocated to Austin from New York
City and Professor Cohen relocated from Boston: both cities with higher costs
of living than Austin and higher property values.
281. Professor Hu joined the UT faculty in 1987. Over the span of 25 years on the
UT faculty, Professor Hu has collected well in excess of $1,000,00 in housing
allowance money. Henry Hu relocated to Austin from Los Angeles, a city with
a higher cost of living than Austin and higher property values.
282. Professor Sage joined the UT faculty in 2006. Over the span of 16 years on the
UT faculty, Professor Sage has collected approximately $960,000 in housing
allowance money. Professor Sage relocated to Austin from New York City, a
city with a higher cost of living than Austin and higher property values.
283. Professor Forbath joined the UT faculty in 1997. In his 25 years on the faculty,
he has collected $625,000 in housing allowance money. Professor Forbath
relocated to Austin from Los Angeles, a city with a higher cost of living than
Austin and higher property values.
284. Professor Jinks joined the UT faculty in 2005. In his 17 years on the UT faculty
Professor Jinks has collected approximately $850,000 in housing allowance
money. Professor Jinks relocated to Austin from Tempe, Arizona.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
285. All six faculty members receiving housing allowances will continue to receive
these housing allowances annually for the duration of their employment on the
UT law faculty
286. The non-Budget Committee faculty members have no idea that some of their
colleagues have been receiving and will continue to receive annual housing
allowances in large sums not accounted for in their reported salaries.
G. Budget Committee performance review processes and salary

determinations by Dean Farnsworth are done without transparency.
287. As indicated above, the Budget Committee annual performance review process
is secretive; it is extremely difficult if not impossible for individual faculty
members to obtain meaningful feedback on their performance or comparative
performance evaluations of colleagues.
288. It is virtually impossible for faculty members, who are not on the Budget
Committee, to obtain complete and accurate information concerning the actual
comparative salaries faculty members are paid.
289. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, UT Law uses at least three different salary arrays in
any given fiscal year.
290. Prior to 2021-2022, the dean’s office compiled at least three different salary
arrays. There was a salary array that set forth each faculty member’s base
salary exclusive of amortized amounts; a salary array that sets forth amortized
salaries; and a salary array that included other monetary special deals like
Faculty Investment Initiative raises, teaching award compensation like the
Massey Teaching Award and the Academy of Distinguished Teachers, or other
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
additional money without labels as to where the amounts come from
specifically.
291. However, there is not one single document that shows exactly how much each
professor is actually getting paid by the University. More surprisingly, there
are items listed on certain salary arrays and in certain financial documents
that even the Chief Financial Officer for the law school could not adequately
explain.
292. UT Law uses these different arrays to artificially inflate or deflate professors’
salaries. For example, as detailed above, one salary array misleadingly makes
Professor Mullenix’s salary appear to be $25,000 higher because of her 2011
settlement. Professor Mullenix is the only professor who has an amortized
amount that comes from a settlement of an equal pay act claim.
293. Additionally, if a professor receives $30,000 over their base salary for teaching
an extra class in an emergency, then that amount is excluded in the salary
array available.
294. These different salary arrays allow UT Law to obscure certain deals, bonuses,
and perks that some professors, mostly male, receive.
295. This includes supplements that Associate Deans receive, additional
supplements for academic programs, appointment bonuses, and the catch-all
“equity and retention.”
296. In fall 2002, for example, then-Dean Bill Powers, offered Larry Sager’s wife,
Jane Cohen, the excess amount of Sager’s initial salary demand so that he
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
would not alienate the senior male faculty by giving Sager an outlandishly
high salary.
297. For the 2021-22 academic year, Professor Sager will still receive his ongoing
annual $25,000 “housing supplement,” along with enjoying $47,000 in “other
supplement” monies.
298. After Dean Powers was promoted to President, Professor Sager took over the
Deanship. He began allocating unrecorded bonuses, called “forgivable loans.”
Open Records Act material showed that approximately 20 male colleagues
were given off-the-books money, which inflated their salaries by about
$150,000 to $300,000. Professor Bone was one of the recipients of these loans.
Professor Mullenix was not.
299. After the “forgivable loans” program was discovered and Dean Sager was
asked to step down, instead of ceasing this conduct, Dean Farnsworth
continued this practice, but under a different name.
300. When Dean Farnsworth took over in 2012, he claimed he would be the “most
transparent dean” that the law school has ever had. Contrary to his
statement, he continued the “forgivable loan” program and made special deals
with specific faculty, this time disguising hiring bonuses by calling them
“moving allowances.”
301. “Housing supplements” and a column entitled “other supplements” are all
listed in the salary array, but no justification or explanation is given for these
amounts. Indeed, even professors receiving this money do not always know
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
what that money is for. For example, when Professor Forbath was asked what
annual $25,000 payment to him labeled “additional compensation” was for.
He replied, “I don’t know.” Forbath Dep. 23:15. That unknown additional
compensation lasts until at least 2026-2027.
302. These different salary arrays allow UT Law to hide what is really going on
and to continue knowingly discriminating against female tenured professors.
303. The Budget Committee meets in closed sessions with Deans Farnsworth and
Chesney.
304. Only the Budget Committee Chair takes notes of the deliberations; Dean
Farnsworth does not. The Budget Committee historically has not always
generated notes of the proceedings. As explained above, the quality of the
Chair’s notes for the dean may distill a faculty member’s entire annual
performance to a few words, or omit entire assessment of performance
categories, such as service.
305. Budget Committee members must return to the dean all materials furnished
during their meetings, which include the binders created for their review.
Budget Committee members are instructed to destroy any notes that they
create relating to Budget Committee matters, which would include any notes
of their reviews of assigned publications so no written record of reviews are
kept.
306. In absence of preserved written evaluations, Budget Committee members’
recollections of performance assessments of individual faculty is unreliable.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
307. During the deposition of Budget Committee members, several, like Dean
Farnsworth, simply could not recall the discussion of faculty members under
review, which had occurred a few days prior to their depositions. Regarding
the Friday budget committee meeting preceding Professor McGarity’s Monday,
deposition, most recent meeting prior to his deposition, Professor McGarity
could not remember who the committee discussed or what was recommended
(McGarity Dep. 128:13-14), and in general Professor Bone stated that his
“memory of committee meetings . . . is not sharp” (Bone Dep. 175:1-2).
308. Budget Committee members are instructed that all deliberations of the
Committee are confidential, and they may not discuss deliberations with
faculty members who are not on the Budget Committee.
309. Every year Dean Farnsworth sends each faculty member a letter indicating
the results of the faculty member’s annual review and their salary increase, if
any.
310. For the duration of Dean Farnsworth’s tenure, Professor Mullenix has
annually received the same one-page letter indicating her pay raise, without
meaningful comments concerning the Dean’s and the Budget Committee’s
assessment of her performance.
311. Annual salary letters produced in discovery demonstrate that the dean’s
letters vary widely across the faculty, with Dean Farnsworth providing
effusive praise, encouragement, and gratitude for favored faculty (always the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Budget Committee members and other faculty he has hired) in contrast to the
boilerplate recitations typical of Professor Mullenix’s letters.
312. The salary letter Professor Mullenix received in fall 2018 gave absolutely no
indication that the Budget Committee had rated her as “below baseline.” The
letter gave no indication of any dissatisfaction by Dean Farnsworth or the
Budget Committee with her performance. 2018 Salary Letters D-0009072.
313. Professor Mullenix has been given no indication on whether she had been rated
below baseline in any other year, despite her continued satisfaction of all
written performance criteria.
314. The salary letter Professor Mullenix received in fall 2018 gave no indication
that she had received the lowest pay raise on the entire faculty among faculty
members receiving pay raises.
315. Only after Professor Peroni called to complain to Professor Mullenix about his
pay raise – considerably higher than Professor Mullenix’s raise – was she
alerted that something was amiss with her pay raise.
316. The failure of the dean’s salary letter to accurately report below baseline
evaluations has had detrimental impact on faculty members’ continued
employment.
317. Professor Lynn Blais indicated that she decided to prematurely quit the
Budget Committee because “it was the lack of standards, the baseless
decisionmaking, men justifying high salaries for other men and lower salaries
for women. I couldn’t be part of it.” Blais Dep. 15-18.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
318. Dean Farnsworth will not discuss with faculty members the content of their
annual performance review.
319. Instead, when Professor Mullenix requested an explanation of her performance
review in fall 2018, Dean Farnsworth refused to do so, repeatedly stating that
he deferred to the decisions of the Budget Committee.
320. Dean Farnsworth stated that he views his function as sitting like an appellate
court, giving deferential review of Budget Committee decisions.
321. Budget Committee members will not discuss the content of a faculty members’
performance review if questioned either. During fall 2018 Professor Mullenix
interviewed every Budget Committee member individually. The either refused
to explain like Professor Bracha who simply stated yes when asked if Professor
Mullenix’s low raise was justified (Budget Committee Interviews 2018
Mullenix 004335), or could not explain like Professor Morse who expressed
surprise (Budget Committee Interviews 2018 Mullenix 004337) at learning
that Professor Mullenix had received the lowest pay raise. Every Budget
Committee member was unaware that she had received the lowest pay raise
and disavowed that they had made that recommendation. Some Budget
Committee members refused to talk to her including Professor Bone who
simply directed her to Dean Farnsworth. Budget Committee Interviews 2018
Mullenix 004339.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
322. The Budget Committee members were unaware that Dean Farnsworth had
unilaterally twice reduced the Budget Committee’s recommendation for
Professor Mullenix’s pay raise in that 2018 salary cycle.
323. During fall 2018 Dean Farnsworth sought to intervene in Professor Mullenix’s
efforts to learn about her performance review. After Dean Farnsworth learned
that Professor Mullenix was seeking information from Budget Committee
members, he sent an email to Budget Committee members, instructing them
not to talk to Professor Mullenix. D-0009488. His email arrived, however, after
every Budget Committee member had met with Professor Mullenix, except for
the Professor Baker, the Chair of the 2018 Budget Committee.
324. In Professor Mullenix’s subsequent interview of Professor Baker – and
consistent with instructions from Dean Farnsworth – Professor Baker refused
to provide Professor Mullenix with information about her performance review.
325. Instead, Professor Baker insisted that the Budget Committee process was
entirely fair, and that Professor Mullenix’s problem was her failure to
understand how the Budget Committee operated. Budget Committee
Interviews 2018 Mullenix 004342.
326. Faculty members who are not on the Budget Committee have no access to their
annual performance review, or the summery or distillation of that review in
the Chair’s notes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
327. In absence of access to the Budget Committee’s assessments, faculty members
have no means of countering irrelevant considerations or inaccurate
information.
328. For example, during the 2020 Budget Committee deliberations, the Budget
Committee member assigned to review a well-received article by Professor
Mullenix, gave a negative review of the article, informing the Budget
Committee members and Dean Farnsworth that the article was a review of a
book by Erwin Chemerinsky. This was factually incorrect—the article simply
discussed Erwin Chemerinsky.
329. The reviewer negatively reviewed Professor Mullenix’s article as an attack on
Chemerinsky. The reviewer’s entire negative review of Professor Mullenix’s
article was based on a factually incorrect premise.
330. Professor Mullenix had no idea of this negative review until this was revealed
in discovery. During the Budget Committee process she also had no way of
countering the incorrect information that formed the basis for the negative
review.
331. The same article that was negatively assessed by the assigned Budget
Committee member concurrently received unsolicited high praise from a
prominent civil procedure professor on the Georgetown University Law Center
faculty.
332. Dean Farnsworth’s annual salary letter to faculty simply contains a statement
of the faculty member’s pay raise. The letter provides no indication of the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
percentage basis for the raise (as past letters indicated), or comparative
indications of the pay raise in the context of the entire faculty.
333. In an email to Dean Farnsworth, Professor Klein complained to Dean
Farnsworth about the lack of information not allowing her to “judge whether I
am doing well or not without having some method of comparison” concerning
individual pay raises that had previously been routinely included in the annual
salary letters. D-0009438.
334. Not only do UT law faculty have no access to their performance review, even if
they did, they have no rights to challenge or appeal decisions of the Budget
Committee or the dean.
335. The Budget Committee performance review process stands in stark contrast to
the law school’s mandated performance review by faculty of their staff
assistants.
336. For many years, each faculty member was tasked by Sylvia Hendricks, the
staff supervisor, with providing a detailed performance review of staff
members working in coordination with a faculty member.
337. Faculty were furnished with a detailed chart containing multiple categories of
job performance criteria. For each described job criteria, faculty were to provide
a written explanation for how the staff member met or did not meet the
criteria.
338. Faculty members were required to submit their written evaluations to Sylvia
Hendricks and to the staff person reviewed by the faculty member.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
339. Faculty members were required to meet with their staff member and to discuss
all categories of the performance review.
340. Professor Mullenix complied with all these staff performance review
requirements for every year in which Sylvia Hendricks requested these
performance reviews. At some point in recent years, Sylvia Hendricks ceased
requesting staff performance reviews from faculty.
341. During the period when faculty members were conducting staff reviews, staff
members were accorded more meaningful performance reviews than faculty
members can obtain from Dean Farnsworth or the Budget Committee
members.
H. Budget Committee’s lack of knowledge and implementation of legal

requirements concerning equal pay and gender discrimination
342. To the best of Professor Mullenix’s knowledge, almost all members of the UT
law school Budget Committee as well as Dean Farnsworth are licensed
attorneys admitted to practice law in Texas or other state courts, as well as
several federal courts.
343. Upon admission to the bar, admittees swear to uphold the United States
constitution and the laws of the United States.
344. As law professors, all members of the UT faculty are engaged in the endeavor
of imparting the principles of the rule of law and justice to the law school’s
classes of students.
345. Every law faculty member, including the dean, is required to take employment
discrimination training every two years, which includes training in the Equal
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Pay Act, Title VII employment discrimination, retaliation, and Title IX
discrimination.
346. This training provides faculty members with explanation of the various
statutes and constitutional provisions governing employment discrimination,
as well as illustrative examples of conduct that violates these laws.
347. As part of this bi-annual training, professors are required to respond to quizzes
testing their knowledge and understanding of employment discrimination law.
348. Despite having to undertake bi-annual employment discrimination training,
the Budget Committee members deposed in this action could not explain the
requirements of the Equal Pay Act or Title VII. For example, Professor
McGarity admitted he was “just not familiar with [the Equal Pay Act]”
(McGarity Dep. 156:15), similarly Professor Peroni, a former Chair of the
Budget Committee stated, “I don’t know that much about [the Equal Pay Act]”
(Peroni Dep. 210:11-12).
349. Dean Farnsworth declined to explain his understanding of the legal
requirements of the Equal Pay Act or Title VII.
350. Dean Farnsworth affirmed that, “I do not recall hearing the budget committee
explicitly discuss the Equal Pay Act” (Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 12:1-3) or
the requirements of Title VII, “whether the committee by name discusses anti-
discrimination laws, I don’t recall them doing that” (Farnsworth Corp. Rep.
Dep. 12:22-24).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
351. In 2011 Professor Mullenix visited every member of that year’s Budget
Committee serving under Dean Sager. She asked each Budget Committee
member if they knew and understood the requirements of the Equal Pay Act
and Title VII. Not a single Budget Committee member told Professor Mullenix
that they had any understanding of these laws, nor are they required “to be
speaking in terms of particular laws” (Farnsworth Corp. Rep. Dep. 15:4-5).
352. Professor Sandy Levinson, then a member of the Budget Committee, jokingly
told Professor Mullenix that he only did constitutional law; he did not do
statutory law.
353. Professor Mullenix asked each Budget Committee member whether any had
read the University Gender Task Force report which documented university-
wide salary discrimination against female faculty members, including female
faculty members at the law school. No Budget Committee member, except for
Professor Dickerson, had read the report.
354. At that time, Professor Mullenix gave every Budget Committee member a copy
of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, the UT Gender Task Force report, and her CV.
355. She requested that at their forthcoming meetings, the Budget Committee
discuss the Equal Pay Act and Title VII requirements regarding pay, as well
as her lagging salary compared to the approximately 15 male members paid
more than her.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
356. Professor Mullenix followed up by asking whether the Budget Committee had
done as Professor Mullenix requested, to discuss the legal requirements of the
Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
357. To Professor Mullenix’s knowledge and as explained by the deposed Budget
Committee members, the Budget Committee does not discuss compliance with
the legal requirements for compensation. In fact, Professor Baker, a former
Chair of the Budget Committee stated that she has not discussed the equal pay
act at meetings.
358. After 2011, Professor Mullenix renewed her request to Dean Farnsworth that
the Budget Committee discuss the legal requirements of the Equal Pay Act and
Title VII. Again, to Plaintiff’s knowledge this request was disregarded.
359. In his deposition Dean Farnsworth confirmed that the Budget Committee does
not discuss the requirements of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
360. This lack of discussion is interesting because Professor Mullenix previously
brought up Equal Pay Act claims, which she settled with the law school though
they persist, which was a widely publicized. Everyone at UT Law School was
on notice that Professor Mullenix had challenged the law school’s
compensation system as a violation of the Equal Pay Act and gender
discrimination laws.
361. Notwithstanding Professor Mullenix’s repeated requests to have her law school
colleagues (especially the dean and the Budget Committee members) discuss
the law relating to compensation practices, the Budget Committee deliberately
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
continued to engage in employment practices that violated these statutory
requirements by not consistently applying the purported standards for merit-
based evaluations and in the case of FII raises, not having standards at all.
362. Even worse, the Budget Committee, Deans Sager and Farnsworth then
targeted Professor Mullenix for her continuous advocacy of Budget Committee
discussion and compliance with the employment laws.
I. Since December 20, 2016, the gender pay gap between Professor
Mullenix and her male comparators has grown by thousands of dollars
every year.
363. There are numerous male comparators on the UT law faculty whose
compensation compared with Professor Mullenix’s salary demonstrates a pay
disparity between her compensation and theirs. Professors Robert Bone, Tom
McGarity, Jay Westbrook, David Rabban, William Sage, Henry Hu, Sandy
Levinson, Robert Peroni, Willy Forbath, Lucas Powe, and Steve Goode are
comparators.
364. Professor Robert Bone is the best comparator because he and Professor
Mullenix both teach the same large-section first year civil procedure class,
often at the same time in adjoining classrooms.
365. Professors Tom McGarrity and Jay Westbrook, classified in the same faculty
cohort as Professor Mullenix, are also comparators.
366. Since 2016, the gender pay gap between Professor Mullenix and these three
comparators has ranged from over $19,000 to nearly $55,000 annually:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Salary Pay Salary Pay Salary Pay

Faculty
17/18 Gap 18/19 Gap 19/20 Gap
Mullenix $329,418 $330,918 $337,418
Bone $372,522 $43,104 $382,162 $51,244 $392,162 $54,744
McGarity $349,192 $19,774 $359,192 $28,274 $369,192 $31,774
Westbrook $348,743 $19,325 $358,743 $27,825 $368,743 $31,325
Faculty Salary Pay Salary Pay
20/21 Gap 21/22 Gap

Mullenix $337,418 $349,418
Bone $380,037 $42,619 $395,037 $45,619
McGarity $369,192 $31,774 $389,192 $39,774
Westbrook $368,743 $31,325 386,743 $37,325
J. If UT Law applied its standards in a non-discriminatory manner,

Professor Mullenix would be paid as much as Professor Bone. In fact,
Professor Bone has been paid at least $237,297 more than Professor
Mullenix since 2017.
367. Professor Bone is currently the third highest paid tenured faculty member at
UT Law, after Professors Bobby Chesney and Larry Sager, with a salary of
$395,037. The current available salary array only lists Professor Bone’s salary
as $390,276. However, Professor Bone receives an additional $4,761 in
perpetuity to make up the disparity in retirement contributions between UT
Law and his prior employer, Boston University.
368. Professor Bone started teaching in 1983, with almost a decade less teaching
experience than Professor Mullenix. He has also been teaching at UT Law as
tenured faculty for 19 years fewer than Professor Mullenix.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
369. Professor Bone teaches first year federal civil procedure, intellectual property,
trademarks, and class actions. Professor Bone is a proper comparator because
UT Law has admitted in discovery that his job requires the same skill, effort,
and responsibility performed under similar work conditions to that of Professor
Mullenix’s job.
370. Comparing Professor Mullenix and Professor Bone in the three performance
criteria that the Budget Committee and the Dean use to evaluate raises,
demonstrates that the two professors are virtually equal in performance, with
Professor Mullenix slightly more accomplished based on her publication
history.
371. Regarding their scholarship records, the quantity of Professor Mullenix’s
publications across all types of publications has exceeded Professor Bone’s.
Professor Mullenix’s publication record over the course of her career, and in
individual budget review years, has equaled or exceeded Professor Bone’s
number of publications.
372. Scholars across the country, as well as practitioners and judges, have assessed
the quality of both Professor Mullenix’s and Professor Bone’s publications in
civil procedure as among the leading and impactful scholarship in their areas
of expertise.
373. For the Spring 2018 Budget Committee performance review, Professor Bone
provided five publications; Professor Mullenix provided fourteen. For the
Spring 2019 Budget Committee review, Professor Bone provided two
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
publications; Professor Mullenix provided ten. During the Spring 2020 Budget
Committee review, Professor Bone provided two publications; Professor
Mullenix provided nine. For the Spring 2021 Budget Committee review,
Professor Bone provided five publications, while Professor Mullenix provided
seven.
374. Regarding the quality of her scholarship and its impact on her fields of
procedure, from 2013 until 2017, Professor Mullenix has been listed as one of
the top-ten most cited scholars on civil procedure according to Professor Brian
Leiter’s compilation of citation rankings. During that same period, Professor
Bone received an honorable mention.
375. Both Professors Mullenix and Bone have been listed several times in the
HeinOnline list of 250 most-cited academics, in all fields.
376. Regarding teaching, during the 2017-2018 academic year, Professor Bone did
not teach any classes in fall 2017 but taught 2 classes in spring 2018. His
average score on his teaching evaluations was 4.68. Professor Mullenix taught
two classes in fall 2017, but no classes in spring 2018. Her average rating was
4.85.
377. For the 2018-19 academic year, Professor Bone’s average student rating was
4.78. Professor Mullenix had a rating of 4.76.
378. From Spring 2017 through Spring 2020, Professor Bone’s averaged teaching
evaluation was at 4.72 was slightly lower than Mullenix’s averaged teaching
evaluation for that period at 4.76.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
379. As a recipient of the 2018 Faculty Investment Initiative, Professor Bone was
guaranteed a raise of at least $10,000 each year for three years, regardless of
how he performed during the years of that program. The raises began in the
2018-19 school year but were put on hiatus during the 2020-2021 academic
year but have resumed in 2021-2022.
380. For 2018-19, Professor Mullenix was given a $1,500 pay raise, the lowest raise
of all faculty members who received pay raises. Professor Bone received his
first guaranteed raise of $10,000.
381. For the 2019-2020 academic year, Professor Bone was given his guaranteed
$10,000 pay raise. For the same period, Professor Mullenix was given a $6,500
pay raise, the 11th lowest raise of all faculty members who received pay raises.
382. For the 2020-21 academic year, neither professor received a raise. However,
for the current 2021-22 academic year, Professor Bone received a $15,000 raise,
which included the $10,000 guaranteed raise plus an additional $5,000.
Professor Mullenix received a $12,000 raise.
383. Regarding the performance criterion of service, Professor Bone and Professor
Mullenix are comparable. Professor Bone attends many internal law school
workshops and meetings. Professor Mullenix attends and participates in law
school colloquia and Drawing Board sessions when in residence, participates
in faculty recruitment, writes evaluations of prospective candidates, attends
candidate job talks, is a frequent conference speaker outside the law school,
participates in ALI projects, mentors students with career advice, writes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
numerous clerkship and internship recommendations for students, comments
on colleagues draft papers, writes tenure and promotion reviews for colleagues
at other law schools, participates in CLE programs, attends almost all alumni
events, attends the annual the Texas Law Review Banquet and the TJIL
banquet, serves on the law school Tenure and Promotion committee, and is
serving a three year tenure on the University Faculty Grievance committee.
In addition, Professor Mullenix’s service is enhanced by the Supreme Court
Preview articles, which some of the Budget Committee has decided count as
“not scholarship.” Professor Mullenix has listed all these service contributions
in every annual report to the Budget Committee.
384. Based on the above, under UT Law’s own written standards, Professor
Mullenix and Professor Bone have comparable performance records from 2016
through 2021.
385. If the law school properly and consistently applied the stated UT law
performance standards, this would establish that Professor Mullenix and
Professor Bone are comparable because that is how they are viewed outside of
the law school.
386. Professor Richard Freer of Emory School of Law stated that both Professor
Mullenix and Professor Bone are “leading figures” (Freer Dep. 36:19) and "[o]n
the scholarly reputation and impact I would be surprised that Professor Bone
would be rated above Professor Mullenix in that sense” (Freer Dep. 40:10-12).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
387. Professor Bone concurs in this assessment, stating that “Linda has a
significant reputation in field. I believe I do as well.” Bone Dep. 94:19-20.
Professor Bone testified that both of them would be included on a list of top
civil procedure scholars in the country.
388. Dean Farnsworth and UT Law School have paid Professor Mullenix at least
$237,297 less than Professor Bone since 2017. Professor Mullenix is paid less
than Professor Bone for equal work because of her sex and her prior challenges
to equal pay violations and other discriminatory conduct at UT Law Sschool.
K. Professor Mullenix should not make less than Professor McGarity.
389. Professor McGarity has been teaching for four years fewer than Professor
Mullenix.
390. Professor McGarity teaches torts, environmental law, and administrative law.
His job requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar work
conditions to Professor Mullenix.
391. In terms of quantity, Professor Mullenix’s scholarly publications annually have
exceeded those of Professor McGarity. In the Spring 2018 Budget Committee
review, Professor McGarity provided three publications; Professor Mullenix
provided fourteen. During the Spring 2019 Budget Committee review,
Professor McGarity provided two publications, while Professor Mullenix
provided ten. During the Spring 2020 Budget Committee review, Professor
McGarity provided two publications, while Professor Mullenix provided nine.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
For the Spring 2021 Budget Committee review, Professor McGarity had one
publication, while Professor Mullenix had seven.
Regarding to the quality of their respective scholarship, both Professor
McGarity and Professor Mullenix are highly regarded in their fields. From
2013 until 2017 Professor Mullenix was listed as one of the top-ten most cited
scholars on civil procedure according to Professor Brian Leiter’s compilation of
citation rankings. During that same period, Professor McGarity was listed as
number 14 in administrative law. Both have also been listed in the HeinOnline
list of 250 most-cited academics, in all fields.
392. In his deposition, Professor Rich Freer attested to the high regard in which
Professor Mullenix’s scholarship is recognized among her peers as “a leading
civil procedure scholar” (Freer Dep. 22:23) and federal courts.
393. Professor Freer noted numerous examples of scholarship by Professor Mullenix
that engaged in current debates in civil procedure and has frequently offered
novel and informative critiques which not only engaged in current debates, but
often are the first to recognize and identify the implications of procedural
developments. For example, Professor Freer referenced an article Professor
Mullenix wrote on the Shady Grove case, “that made an observation that I
think is really important. It was profound” (Freer Dep. 28:24-29:1) and a
McGeorge piece submitted for the Mike Vitiello symposium that was “a very
thoughtful piece about the art of procedural form” (Freer Dep. 29:22-25).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
394. Professor Freer noted that “one of the things [he] particularly admire[s] about
Professor Mullenix’s work is that she was one of the people I think to blow the
Whistle on MDL,” (Freer Dep. 24:23-25), and “Professor Mullenix has been
one of the first people to talk about that” (Freer Dep. 25:11-12), which has
ultimately lead to “the rules advisory committee . . . actually considering a
separate set of rules for MDL case[s]” (Freer Dep. 26:15-16).
395. Regarding teaching, during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 academic years, Professor
McGarity and Professor Mullenix both taught approximately the same number
of students, and both received top-five overall average student ratings.
Professor McGarity achieved an average of 4.85 rating to Professor Mullenix’s
4.80.
396. Regarding service, Professor McGarity and Professor Mullenix have
comparable service records. Professor McGarity engages in various service to
the law school, including recommendation letters for students, and other
internal and external activities, including attendance at colloquia and Drawing
Board sessions and Chairing the Budget Committee and serving annually on
the Budget Committee. As indicated above, Professor Mullenix attends
participates in law school colloquia and Drawing Board sessions when in
residence, participates in faculty recruitment, writes evaluations of
prospective candidates, attends candidate job talks, is a frequent conference
speaker outside the law school, participates in ALI projects, mentors students
with career advice, writes numerous clerkship and internship
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
recommendations for students, comments on colleagues draft papers, writes
tenure and promotion reviews for colleagues at other law schools, participates
in CLE programs, attends almost all alumni events, attends the annual the
Texas Law Review Banquet and the TJIL banquet, serves on the law school
Tenure and Promotion committee, and is serving a three year tenure on the
University Faculty Grievance committee. In addition, Professor Mullenix’s
service, as decided by the Budget Committee, includes her Supreme Court
Preview articles. Professor Mullenix has listed all these service contributions
in every annual report to the Budget Committee.
397. Professor McGarity is 1 of 21 professors chosen by Dean Farnsworth to receive
the second round of the Faculty Investment Initiative raises, which includes a
guaranteed $30,000 raise over three years – regardless of any performance
metrics. Professor Mullenix was not selected for an FII(2) guaranteed raise.
398. Despite equivalent performance records, in 2018, Professor McGarity received
a $10,000 raise, while Professor Mullenix received only a $1,500 pay raise. In
2019, Professor McGarity received a $10,000 raise, while Professor Mullenix
received a $6,500. In 2020, neither received raises. However, in 2021,
Professor McGarity received a $20,000 raise, which included his guaranteed
$10,000 FII(2) raise plus an additional $10,000. Professor Mullenix received a
$12,000 raise.
399. Pursuant to UT Law’s own written standards, Professors Mullenix and
McGarity are comparably equal. However, since 2017, Professor McGarity has
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
received at least $151,370 more than Professor Mullenix, not including the
$50,000 Massey Teaching award he received during this period.
400. Professor Mullenix is paid less than Professor McGarity for equal work because
of her sex and her prior challenges to equal pay violations and other
discriminatory conduct at the UT law school.
L. Professor Mullenix should not be paid less than Professor Jay

Westbrook.
401. Professor Westbrook has been teaching for seven years fewer than Professor
Mullenix.
402. Professor Westbrook teaches basic commercial law, secured credit, bankruptcy,
international business litigation, international business transactions and
related seminars. His job requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under
similar work conditions to Professor Mullenix.
403. Annually Professor Mullenix publishes more scholarship than Professor
Westbrook. In the Spring 2018 Budget Committee review, Professor Westbrook
provided two publications; Professor Mullenix provided fourteen. In the Spring
2019 Budget Committee review, Professor Westbrook published one piece;
Professor Mullenix provided ten publications. During the Spring 2020 Budget
Committee review, Professor Westbrook provided two publications; Professor
Mullenix provided nine. And during the Spring 2021 Budget Committee
review, Professor Westbrook provided one publication, while Professor
Mullenix provided seven.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
404. Both Professor Westbrook and Professor Mullenix are regarded as outstanding
scholars in their fields. From 2013 until 2017, Professor Mullenix was listed as
one of the top-ten most cited scholars on civil procedure according to Professor
Brian Leiter’s compilation of citation rankings. During that same period,
Professor Westbrook was also listed as a top-ten scholar in the fields of for
bankruptcy and commercial paper. Both have also been listed in the
HeinOnline list of 250 most-cited academics, in all fields.
405. As indicated above, Professor Westbrook and Professor Mullenix’s scholarship
is recognized by external reviews as outstanding in their respective fields. In
terms of quality of scholarly contributions, Professor Mullenix and Professor
Westbrook are substantially comparable; in term of quantity, Professor
Mullenix has out-published Professor Westbrook.
406. During all periods, Professor Mullenix’s numerical teaching evaluations have
exceeded those of Professor Westbrook. During the 2017-2018 academic year,
Professor Westbrook’s average student rating was 4.8. During that same
period, Professor Mullenix’s student rating was 4.85.
407. For the 2018-2019 academic year, Professor Westbrook’s average student
rating was 4.33. Professor Mullenix had a rating of 4.76.
408. From Fall 2017 through Spring 2020, Professor Westbrook has received lower
average student ratings at 4.57 to Professor Mullenix’s rating at 4.80.
409. Regarding satisfaction of the service performance criterion, both Professor
Westbrook and Professor Mullenix engage in comparable service activities (as
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
indicated for Professor Mullenix, above). Both Professors Westbrook and
Mullenix engaged in similar activities that have benefited the law school.
410. For the 2018-2019 academic year, Professor Westbrook was a recipient of the
second round of Faculty Investment Initiative. The initiative guarantees a
$10,000 pay raise to Professor Westbrook regardless of any performance
metrics. Over the three years of the program, Professor Westbrook will receive
$30,000.
411. For the same 2018-2019 academic year, Professor Mullenix was given a $1,500
pay raise, the lowest raise of all faculty members who received pay raises.
412. Unlike all her comparators in the cohort, Professor Mullenix was not given an
FII(2) award, even though her performance record is comparable to or exceeds
that of her comparators receiving FII funds.
413. The annual receipt of additional guaranteed FII funds has widened the salary
gap between Professor Mullenix and her comparators.
414. For the 2019-2020 academic year, Professor Westbrook was given his
guaranteed $10,000 pay raise.
415. For the same period, Professor Mullenix was given a $6,500 pay raise, the 11th
lowest raise of all faculty members who received pay raises.
416. For the 2020-2021, neither professor was given a raise. However, in 2021,
Professor Westbrook received an $18,000 raise, which included his guaranteed
$10,000 raise, plus $8,000 more. Professor Mullenix received a $12,000 raise.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
417. Pursuant to UT Law’s written standards, Professors Westbrook and Mullenix
are comparably equal. Professor Mullenix has slightly better performance
under the law school’s standards for scholarship and teaching. But from 2017
until 2021, Professor Westbrook has received at least $147,125 more than
Professor Mullenix.
418. Professor Mullenix is paid less than Professor Westbrook for equal work
because of her sex and her prior challenges to equal pay violations and other
419. A similar detailed comparison of Professor Mullenix’s career performance
record and annual assessments with her other male comparators (Professors
Rabban, Sage, Hu, Forbath, Steiker, Peroni, and Silver) would all result in the
same conclusion: Professor Mullenix is paid less than her male comparators
for equal work because of her sex and her prior challenges to equal pay
violations and other discriminatory conduct at the UT law school.
M. UT Law has been retaliating against Professor Mullenix for her prior
reports of unequal pay for a long time.
420. The above-described acts of unequal pay also constitute retaliation against
Professor Mullenix for her prior challenges to equal pay violations and other
421. This retaliatory unequal pay has been ongoing for Professor Mullenix’s more
than thirty years on the UT law faculty and continues to this day.
422. Professor Mullenix has voiced concerns about her pay disparity and the pay
disparity of other female faculty members to six deans of the UT law school,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
including Dean Mark Yudof, Dean Michael Sharlot, Interim Dean Stephanie
Lindquist, Dean Bill Powers, Dean Lawrence Sager, and Dean Ward
Farnsworth. She also publicly and privately raised unequal pay concerns with
numerous of her faculty colleagues.
423. Because of the failure of successive deans and the faculty to address Professor
Mullenix’s challenges to compensation practices at the law school, Professor
Mullenix also raised her concerns with Former University Vice President and
Provost Sheldon Eckland-Olson.
424. Provost Sheldon Eckland-Olson did nothing in response. Instead, various law
deans and faculty members have engaged in numerous retaliatory acts against
Professor Mullenix over the span of her UT law career.
425. In spring 1994, Professor Mullenix told then-Professor Bill Powers and
Professor Doug Laycock about her concerns regarding the discriminatory
employment practices that occurred in the Appointments, Budget, and Tenure
Committees on which she sat at that time (Chairing the Appointments
Committee).
426. Later that spring, Dean Mark Yudof offered the position of Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs, which Professor Mullenix accepted. Approximately two
weeks later, Dean Yudof rescinded his offer because Professors Powers and
Laycock objected to the appointment because of her reports of discriminatory
practices.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
427. In fall 1995, Professor Mullenix agreed to a “look see” visit at the University of
Michigan School of Law, after visiting at Harvard Law School the entire
previous year.
428. At the end of the semester, her friend and colleague Professor Ed Cooper on
the Michigan faculty informed her that an offer of a full-time faculty position
at Michigan was “in the bag.”
429. Therefore, Professor Mullenix was stunned when in January or February of
1996 the Chair of the Michigan lateral hiring committee, Professor Rick Pildes,
informed her that she would not be receiving an offer. Shortly after hearing
that news, she learned why.
430. When Professor Sam Issacharoff, then a UT Law professor, discovered from his
friend Professor Pildes that Professor Mullenix was being considered for a
lateral offer, Professor Issacharoff wrote—unbidden and unrequested—a “kill
letter” to the Michigan hiring committee.
431. Professor Mullenix later learned that the “kill letter” Professor Issacharoff
wrote was a group effort by several male professors in the UT Law faculty
lounge, to assist Professor Issacharoff in avoiding a potential libel lawsuit.
432. Professor Mullenix informed Dean Sharlot of these events and requested that
he take some curative action. When Dean Sharlot questioned Professor
Issacharoff about the latter, Professor Issacharoff lied about having written
the letter.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
433. He and his friends among the UT Law faculty then spread the rumor to the
entire UT Law faculty that Professor Mullenix was a liar. Professor Mullenix
subsequently received a copy of Professor Issacharoff’s “kill letter” from a
member of the Michigan hiring committee.
434. Professor Mullenix provided a copy of the “kill letter” to the UT Law faculty to
refute the claim that she was a liar. Nothing was done about Professor
Issacharoff’s behavior, instead he was awarded a Chair year in advance of
Professor Mullenix.
435. Professor Mullenix was further marginalized and ostracized for calling
attention to the sabotaging behavior of her male colleagues. The false
narrative that Professor Mullenix is a liar has been passed down to new faculty
members and persists to this day.
436. In 1999, Professor Mullenix asked to be part of the deanship candidacy pool
when UT Law was searching for a new Dean after Dean Sharlot stepped down.
It is customary for faculty members to be included in the candidacy pool if they
request to be included in the deanship pool.
437. However, Professor Mullenix was refused this opportunity expressly because
of her prior grievances. According to Professor Teresa Sullivan, the wife of
Professor Laycock, Professor Mullenix would not be considered as a dean
candidate because the dean search was “not a forum for airing grievances.”
438. Professor Mullenix did not confine her deanship searches to UT Law. Between
2000 and 2010, Professor Mullenix was nominated, vetted by numerous
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
committees, and interviewed for deanships six times at various law schools.
After extensive vetting and interviews, she was a deanship finalist all six
times.
439. In every instance, when the law schools published their deanship finalist lists,
her male colleagues at UT Law intervened to successfully sabotage her
candidacy by making calls to their colleagues at these institutions. She learned
of this sabotage from friendly colleagues at the law schools where she was
under consideration for the deanship.
440. Professor Bob Peroni in his deposition confirmed that UT law colleagues were
sabotaging Professor Mullenix’s ability to appointed as a dean. Professor
Peroni explained that he was contacted by a colleague at the University of
Maryland law school in the final stages of its deanship search who told him
“the stuff people are saying at University of Texas is just astounding. I’ve never
seen anything like this in my years of being on appointments committees, just
saying she’s terrible” (Peroni Dep. 63:11-14).
441. Professor Peroni’s colleague reported that he very much liked Professor
Mullenix through her deanship interviews, but he was surprised to learn that
UT colleagues were contacting faculty at his law school with negative
commentary on Professor Mullenix. Professor Peroni’s colleague wanted to
know what was going on with the faculty at UT law that they would sabotage
a colleague’s decanal prospects late in a deanship search.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
442. Independent of Professor Peroni’s information concerning the sabotage of
Professor Mullenix during the Maryland decanal search, Professor Mullenix’s
longstanding friend Professor June Carbone (now at the University of
Minnesota) independently contacted Professor Mullenix to apprise her of the
fact that her UT colleagues were spreading false and malicious gossip about
Professor Mullenix to sabotage her candidacy.
443. Professor Mullenix had the same experience with the deanship search for the
William and Mary law school, where she also was a deanship finalist. After
being rejected for the position, she learned that her UT colleague Professor
Dan Rodriguez had provided faculty at William and Mary with a negative
assessment of Professor Mullenix.
444. Professor Mullenix had no interaction with Professor Rodriguez during his six
years on the UT faculty. Professor Mullenix sat on no committees with
Professor Rodriguez and never had a single conversation with him.
445. After learning that Professor Rodriguez had supplied a negative assessment of
Professor Mullenix, she invited Professor Rodriguez to lunch and asked
whether he had indeed made negative comments to another law school during
a decanal search. He admitted that he had.
446. In the following weeks after this conversation, Professor Rodriquez was
appointed as the new dean of Northwestern University Law School. Dean
Rodriquez subsequently was appointed as President of the Association of
American Law Schools and appointed to the American Law Institute Council.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
447. Professor Mullenix has been marginalized and excluded from participating in
institutional life because of her challenges to unequal pay, challenges to the
UT law compensation system, and challenges to sex discrimination.
448. On September 27-28, 2013, in conjunction with Vanderbilt Law School, UT
Law sponsored a conference in honor of Professor Richard N. Nagareda, who
had prematurely died. Professor Nagareda had taught mass tort litigation.
449. Professor Charlie Silver of UT Law and Professor Sam Issacharoff, a former
UT Law professor, planned the conference and invited speakers from the UT
Law faculty who teach civil procedure and complex litigation to participate and
write papers.
450. Professor Mullenix is an expert on mass tort litigation. At that time, she had
published a casebook on mass tort litigation, which is still the only dedicated
casebook on the subject and was the only member of the faculty who taught a
dedicated course on mass tort litigation. Professor Mullenix had, and continues
to have, an extensive publication record concerning mass tort litigation.
451. Despite this expertise, Professor Mullenix was not asked to participate in the
conference.
452. Professor Mullenix has held the Morris and Rita Atlas Chair in Advocacy since
2001. Since meeting both Morris and Rita Atlas in 2001, she kept in touch
with them, corresponding every year. She also personally knows both Scott
and Nancy Atlas through her work with alumni affairs and her work on the
Southern District of Texas’ Civil Reform Task Force, respectively.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
453. In October 2015 Morris Atlas died. Professor Mullenix, as the Chairholder
bearing Morris Atlas’ name, asked to be part of the delegation UT Law sent to
the memorial service in Brownsville/McAllen. Dean Farnsworth told her there
was no room on the university plane for her and on short notice was unable to
independently make travel arrangements to honor Morris Atlas and the Atlas
family.
N. UT Law has continued its retaliation against Professor Mullenix up to

the present, most notably between May 11, 2018, and March 7, 2019.
454. On October 12, 2018, in response to Professor Mullenix’s challenge to her pay
disparity on September 20, 2018, Dean Farnsworth told Professor Mullenix
that he could bring her salary into parity with Professor Bone, but only if she
agreed to retire in two years.
455. Dean Farnsworth’s statement is direct evidence of retaliation because
Professor Mullenix is a tenured faculty member who cannot be forced to resign
or retire. Moreover, Professor Mullenix was not planning to retire in two years,
as she intends to work until 80, the age at which most UT faculty members
have retired.
456. At the time Dean Farnsworth made his salary parity offer conditioned on
Professor Mullenix’s immediate retirement, except she had at least twelve
more years as a tenured professor on her contract with the university.
457. This act of retaliation was within 300 days of Professor Mullenix’s March 7,
2019, charge of discrimination and within 22 days of Professor Mullenix’s
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
protected activity of challenging the law schools’ unequal pay and
compensation system.
458. Further, such a response to a complaint of discrimination is likely to chill
complaints of discrimination from other faculty members. If the Dean offers
to address a tenured faculty member’s challenge only if the faculty member
retires early, faculty members are not likely to bring forward other concerns
for fear of being pressured to resign.
459. Since assuming the deanship, Dean Farnsworth has established a habit of
pressuring faculty members who challenge UT law compensation practices to
retire. Dean Farnsworth pressured two of the three professors who requested
open records regarding Dean Sager’s secret compensation deals to retire
(Professors Getman and Sampson).
460. That this is a strategy of Dean Farnsworth to retaliate against and deal with
difficult faculty members who oppose unlawful pay practices has since been
confirmed by Professor Peroni at UT Law.
461. According to Professor Peroni, one of the first things Dean Farnsworth said to
Professor Jack Getman, one of the open records filers, was “I don’t really like
troublemakers.” Peroni Dep. 99:25. Professor Peroni says there is a definitely
a pattern in who Dean Farnsworth tries to pressure into retirement.
462. Dean Farnsworth has been and continues to be especially hostile to those who
have brought legal action against UT Law. For example, according to Professor
Peroni, when he brought up Professor Mullenix’s 2011 settlement, “he [Dean
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Farnsworth] was very hostile. I was shocked how hostile he was. And he was
very flippant.” Peroni Dep. 24:22-23. Peroni stated that in specific reference
to Professor Mullenix, Dean Farnsworth said something along the lines of “I
don’t like complainers.” Peroni Dep. 24:25-25:1.
463. In addition to Dean Farnsworth encouraging Professor Mullenix to retire in
exchange for addressing her claims, Professor Mullenix has been retaliated
against in other ways, both within the 300 days before her EEOC charge was
filed on March 7, 2019, and after:
• Despite repeated requests, including in May 2018 and May 2019, to be
appointed Associate Dean for Research, she has not been appointed to
that position.
• Given her extensive publication record and knowledge of research
scholarship methods, Professor Mullenix has been more than qualified
to serve in this position. During her more than thirty years at UT law,
this position has been held by three male colleagues: Professors Jack
Getman, Douglas Laycock, and Willy Forbath. When Professor Mullenix
requested this appointment during Dean Sharlot’s tenure, Dean Sharlot
refused the appointment, informing Professor Mullenix that the position
belonged to the guy holding the job.
• The lack of appointment to the position of Associate Dean for Research
has had a non-trivial adverse impact on Professor Mullenix’s career
prospects. During her various deanship vettings, Professor Mullenix
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
was repeatedly questioned why, during her long career, she had never
served as an Associate Dean.
• Not only was Professor Mullenix unceremoniously removed from
appointment as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs by Dean Yudof,
but she has been blocked from serving as Associate Dean for Research
for over thirty years.
• Further, Professor Mullenix is the only senior female faculty member to
be continually excluded from the Budget Committee, even though she
requested appointment to the Budget Committee in her first meeting
with Dean Farnsworth in August 2012.
• Instead, in August or September of each year, Professor Mullenix is
assigned to “do-nothing committees,” which have no real impact on law
school governance. This has happened since and in retaliation for her
EEOC charge being filed.
• In 2012-2013 Professor Mullenix was assigned to the newly created
computer committee along with the guys in the IT department. She had
absolutely no expertise in the law school or the university’s computer
systems. The Chair of the Committee and the IT department, Mike
Harvey, commented to Professor Mullenix that he understood she was
assigned to the computer committee as punishment.
• In 2013-2014 Professor Mullenix was assigned to the Tenure and
Promotion Committee because of Dean Farnsworth’s mistaken belief
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
that Professor Mullenix would vote against giving tenure to a junior
faculty member, Professor Mira Ganor, who Dean Farnsworth
repeatedly and vocally opposed granting tenure. When Professor
Mullenix voted to approve tenure for Professor Ganor, she was removed
from the tenure committee.
• In 2014-2015 Professor Mullenix was assigned to the Rules and
Standards Committee, chaired by Professor David Robertson. Professor
Robertson never convened a meeting of this committee for the entire
year, so there was never any work completed or assigned.
• In 2015-2106, Professor Mullenix was assigned to the Faculty
Governance Committee, chaired by Professor George Dix. Professor Dix
never convened a meeting of this committee for the entire year, and
again no work was completed or assigned.
• In 2016-2017, after initially being assigned to yet another do-nothing
committee Professor Mullenix requested that Dean Chesney reassign
her to the Tenure and Promotion Committee. Professor Jordan Steiker
chaired this committee in 2016-2017, but he never convened a meeting
during the entire year and the committee did not review any faculty for
tenure or promotion.
• In 2017-2018, despite requesting assignment to the Tenure Committee,
Professor Mullenix was placed on the Teaching Committee chaired by
Professor Lynn Blais. Professor Lynn Blais confirmed that being placed
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
on a committee that “was boring as can be and a useless waste of time”
and was “kind of a punishment.” Blais Dep. 66:8-10. She stated it was a
punishment because “it looks on paper as if you’re getting committee
assignments, but you are not getting any important committee
assignments.” Blais Dep. 66:5-7.
• In 2018-2019 Professor Mullenix was again placed on the Teaching
Committee after she explicitly requested not to be put on the Teaching
Committee but asked to be on the Tenure Committee. She was re-
assigned to the Tenure Committee, chaired by Professor Charlie Silver.
Professor Silver never convened a single meeting during this year and
the committee did not review any faculty for tenure.
• In 2019-2020 Professor Mullenix was again placed on the Teaching
Committee, despite her specific request not to be placed on that
committee. Dean Chesney reassigned Professor Mullenix to the Tenure
Committee, this time chaired by Professor Joey Fishkin. Professor
Fishkin did not convene any meetings of the committee during this year,
and it again did not review any faculty for tenure.
• In 2020-2021 Professor Mullenix was assigned to the Tenure Committee
chaired by Professor Liz Sepper. She requested classroom visits of an
untenured faculty member, Eric Encarnacion. The committee did not
complete any other work.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
• During his tenure Dean Farnsworth has created several Ad Hoc
committees to address issues that he does not send to the existing
constituent committees. Dean Farnsworth has failed to appoint
Professor Mullenix any ad hoc committees that Dean Farnsworth has
created.
• In 2017, Dean Farnsworth had created a committee to review First Year
Law Exams, which conducted a study between 2017 and 2019.
Notwithstanding that Professor Mullenix is highly regarded for her
teaching first year law students, she was excluded from this committee
and did not learn of its existence until 2019. The ad hoc committee also
never consulted with Professor Mullenix concerning a faculty
governance issue that affected her teaching.
• Similarly, she was not considered for or appointed to an ad hoc
committee reviewing grading, convened during spring 2020.
• The failure to appoint Professor Mullenix to functioning committees or
special ad hoc committees is a form of retaliation that contributes to the
Budget Committee’s adverse performance evaluations regarding law
school service and as Professor Peroni and others have corroborated, are
intended as retaliation. The Budget Committee in Spring 2021 placed
great emphasis on ad hoc committee membership in rating faculty
members’ level of service.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
• Professor Mullenix has never been awarded university or law school
teaching awards, which carry additional compensation.
• The Massey Teaching Excellence prize is usually awarded every other
year to a law school professor and carries a substantial financial award
of up to $50,000. The Massey Teaching award has been given to a series
of male law professors (Professors David Rabban, Ernest Smith, Stan
Johanson, Steve Goode, and Tom McGarity). The only female faculty
member to be awarded the Massey Teaching prize was Barbara Hines,
an untenured clinician. In 2019, the award was given posthumously to
Dean Powers.
• Professor Mullenix has never been considered for the Massey Award
despite an exceptionally lengthy, strong record of excellent teaching
evaluations comparable to all the male recipients of this honor.
• Induction into the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished
Teachers occurs annually with nominations in the fall of each year and
appointments announced in the spring. Professor Mullenix has never
been appointed to Academy. Five male members of the UT Law faculty
have been appointed to the Academy of Distinguished Teachers:
Professor Steve Goode, Stanley Johanson, David Rabban, David
Robertson, and Bill Powers. Professor Mechele Dickerson is the only
female faculty member appointed to the Academy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
• Professor Mullenix was nominated twice for the Academy and twice
denied during President Bill Power’s tenure as university president.
• Despite her lengthy distinguished teaching record and continued
superior teaching evaluations and enthusiastic student comments, Dean
Farnsworth has stated that he has “chosen to nominate other people . .
. for that university teaching award rather than renominate Professor
Mullenix again.” Farnsworth Dep. 287:5-7.
• Dean Farnsworth has suggested that he made that choice because of
correspondence from Professor Mullenix in which, among other things,
she had raised issues of gender equality regarding nominations for that
award and why she should be considered for it.
• Within 300 days of her charge of discrimination and since filing her
charge, Professor Mullenix has also intentionally been excluded from
specific aspects of institutional life, including her accomplishments
being featured on the law school web page and participating in specific
law school events.
• Since her charge was filed, Professor Mullenix has been invited as a
speaker to numerous conferences to share her work, appointed to
prestigious projects for the ALI and Max Planck Institute, published in
numerous law journals, and has released two completely revised
editions of two of her books. None of these accomplishments has been
publicized by the law school on its webpage.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
• In August 2019, she asked Professor Willy Forbath to participate in the
Supreme Court Review panel that the law school conducts at the
beginning of every school year. Professor Mullenix has requested to
participate in this law school program every year going back two
decades. Professor Forbath, who controls this program has repeatedly
ignored Professor Mullenix’s request to present during this program,
even though she has been writing Previews of Supreme Court cases for
over thirty-five years and has written and analyzed over 100 Supreme
Court cases.
• For the 2019 program, Professor Mullenix had written at least fifteen
articles prior about mandatory arbitration clauses, the subject of a
recently decided Supreme Court decision. In spite of her considerable
scholarship and knowledge of this topic, discussion of the Supreme
Court case was assigned to another faculty member who had not
published anything relating to that topic.
• During her thirty years on the UT law faculty, Professor Mullenix has
only been asked to participate once in the law schools’ Supreme Court
review program. In 2010, Professor Mullenix was permitted to talk
about the Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.
• In retaliation for her advocacy and challenges to pay disparity and other
gender-based discrimination, Professor Mullenix is held out by the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
administration as an example of what happens when a faculty member
complains.
• Female faculty members who raise questions or challenges to pay equity
issues are labeled as problematic, difficult, or troublemakers: faculty
members that Dean Farnsworth has admitted that he does not like and
whose judgment he does not trust.
• In contrast, female faculty members who do not raise equity issues have
been rewarded with generous pay raises. Dean Farnsworth has
identified these female faculty as outstanding members of the faculty
whose judgment he trusts.
• Dean Farnsworth places these female faculty in all important positions
of faculty governance: the Budget and Appointments Committees, as
well special ad hoc committees. Dean Farnsworth has previously
appointed Professors Lynn Baker and Angie Littwin as the law school’s
representatives to the University Gender Task Force committees, both
professors who are not known for their knowledge on gender equity
issues.
• Dean Farnsworth has avoided appointing any female faculty member
who has raised equity concerns to the university committees addressing
such issues.
• Female members of the UT law faculty have gotten the message about
how to make—and not make – a successful career at UT law school.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
• Dean Farnsworth selected female Professors Dickerson, Baker, Wagner,
Laurin, Littwin, Wasserman, and Morse to all received FII(1) and (2)
pay raises. None of these recipients have ever raised any questions or
challenges to the UT compensation system. In 2019, Professor Melissa
Wasserman received a $30,000 pay raise from the Budget Committee,
and in 2021-2022, these female faculty all were recipients of
comparatively larger raises than Professor Mullenix. Dean Farnsworth
and the Budget Committee conferred these large raises after Professor
Mullenix filed her discrimination charge.
• The Budget Committee also did not extend FII or other equity raises to
any female faculty that had challenged the law school’s compensation
practices or requested equitable salary adjustments.
• Dean Farnsworth has twice reduced the budget committee’s
recommended raises for Professor Mullenix. Dean Farnsworth reduced
her raise from $4000 down to $1,500 in 2018. In May 2019, he reduced
the committee’s proposed raise to Professor Mullenix of $7,000 down to
$6,500. He has provided no explanation for either.
• New faculty are told not to interact with her because she is “poison” due
to her prior complaints. Professor Lynn Blais confirmed this during her
deposition, stating that when she arrived at the law school, “the message
conveyed by my male colleagues was very loudly and clearly conveyed to
me to not align myself with [Professor Mullenix] and to avoid her
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
basically and that she was crazy and that if I wanted to be taken
seriously at tenure time, I would not associate myself with her.” Blais
Dep. 40:25-41:5.
• Professor Blais also confirmed that rude or mean comments were
“ubiquitous. . . the tenor of the law school was she’s crazy and . . . wants
more than she deserves and stay away from her.” Blais Dep. 106:23-25.
• As another longstanding female member of the faculty, Professor Blais
reported that there was a sense that “difficult women can’t be on
committees at UT.” Blais Dep. 46:13-14.
• Professor Mullenix has been described to others as someone who causes
problems for the university, by the University General Counsel Jeff
Graves as “a known difficult woman,” and has been described by Dean
Farnsworth as both “difficult,” “vain,” and “mediocre.” Despite his belief
that Professor Mullenix is not the most vain or difficult professor at UT
Law, Dean Farnsworth has refused to publicly name anyone else.
O. UT Law has retaliated against Professor Mullenix to discourage

others from coming forward and conceal the fact that for from at least
2016-2019, tenured female professors at UT Law have been paid on
average at least $20-$24,000 less than tenured male professors and do
not receive chair appointments.
464. UT Law has retaliated against Professor Mullenix because the unequal pay
problem goes beyond her.
465. During Spring 2012, Interim Dean Lindquist in Spring 2012 was well aware of
the pay disparities between male and female faculty at UT Law. In fact, in
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2010, prior to her becoming Dean, she had done an analysis of whether there
was a pay gap. Here are her findings:
Dear Bob:
Thought you might be interested in this statistical analysis of the salary data. Of
course it does not account for differences in negotiating position or resume content
in terms of articles and books. But it does control for position (chair,
professorship, professor--with assistant professor as omitted reference category},
which should get at some of these factors. It also accounts for grad year and
whether someone is a spousal hire. And it controls for whether the faculty member
has a phd.
The results show that (1) men are overpaid compared to women, on average by about
$16k, (2) minorities are underpaid compared to whites, on average by about $16k, (3)
spousal hires are overpaid compared to nonspousal hires, on average by about $19k
(this result is statistically significant in a one-tailed test}, and (4) having a phd
has no effect on salary differentials.
These results are seriously concerning from a legal standpoint, it seems to me. I am
not personally litigious, but someone who was could have a field day with this
information. For that reason, I am sharing it only with you.
Stef
466. When she was appointed as interim dean, she did not fix the problem and when
Dean
log: Farnsworth came on, it got worse and the issue continues
C:\Users\Stefanie\Documents\Administrative\salary data\results.logto persist.
log type: text
opened on: 30 Apr 2010, 09:16:05
467. As stated above, under Dean Farnsworth, the female faculty members who
regress annual_salary phd professor chair professorship spouse gradyear mal
> e minority
challenged compensation practices or requested equitable salary adjustments
Source SS df MS Number of obs 62
-------------+------------------------------ F( 8, 53) 11.93
have
Modelbeen marginalized by
I 3.3494e+l0 8 UT Law—including Professors
4.1867e+09 Prob> F Mullenix,
0.0000Sue Klein,
Residual I 1.8592e+10 53 350796508 R-squared 0.6430
-------------+------------------------------ A~ R-squared 0.5892
Louise
Total Weinberg,
I 5.2086e+10 Lynn 61 Blais, Barbara Bintliff, Root
853871697 and Lauren
MSE Fielder.
18730
468.
annual Insal~y
fact, Professor
I Coef.Barbara Bintliff went
Std. Err. t toP>lt'I
Dean Farnsworth
[95% Conf. office
Interval]to request a
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
phd 2862.532 8616.18 0.33 0.741 -14419.34 20144.4
salary adjustment,
professor 33504.24 armed with her
15617.29 list of0.037
2.15 accomplishments
2179.914 and contributions,
64828.56
chair 57583.43 9973.298 5.77 0.000 37579.53 77587.34
professors~p 35905.21 9077.254 3.96 0.000 17698.54 54111.88
and
spousewas brushed
19246.49 off and denied any
10661.44 1.81consideration.
0.077 -2137.662 40630.64
gradyear -56.41385 232.5922 -0.24 0.809 -522.9347 410.107
male 16416.47 5988.349 2.74 0.008 4405.362 28427.58
469. minority
Professor Lauren
-16105.67 Fielder approached
7794.567 -2.07 Dean 0.044Farnsworth
-31739.59on December
-471.7515 12, 2019,
cons 255430.9 465744.7 0.55 0.586 -678734.6 1189596
to request a salary adjustment, i.e., a pay raise. Like Professor Bintliff,
log close
Professor
log:
log type:
Fielder approached Dean Farnsworth
C:\Users\Stefanie\Documents\Administrative\salary
text
armed with a list of her
data\results.log
closed on: 30 Apr 2010, 09:16:26
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
accomplishments and contributions. Dean Farnsworth brushed her off and
rejected her efforts.
470. According to Professor Blais, in her 27 years at the law school things have
never been so bad for women as they are right now at the school.
471. Dean Farnsworth personally attacks the characters of female faculty or
administrators who complain of unequal pay based on gender. For example,
after Professor Klein asked why there were not more women given FII funding,
Dean Farnsworth gave her the lowest raise she had ever received and said she
was not collegial.
472. When the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, Elizabeth Bangs, made a
complaint of sex discrimination regarding pay to the Office for Inclusion and
Equity, Dean Farnsworth said she was paid less because she did not conduct
herself professionally around students in sensitive situations because of her
style of communication. Dean Farnsworth also stated that Dean Bang’s salary
complaint “was not found to be substantiated.” Farnsworth Dep. 25:2-3.
473. Based on the publicly available salary arrays for 2017-2020 and including
distinguished teacher awards for the seven professors who have received them,
there is a large pay gap between tenured male and female professors:
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

All faculty avg: $275,623.23 $282,417.05 $290,223.03
Female faculty avg: $263,484.00 $270,807.53 $279,800.50
Male faculty avg: $287,762.46 $294,026.56 $300,645.57
Gender pay gap: $24,278.46 $23,219.03 $20,845.07
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
474. The salary arrays from 2017 through 2020 generated these averages:
2017-18 Last 2018-19 2019-20

Last Name Sex Sex Last Name Sex
Comp. Name Comp. Comp.
Powers M $365,892 Powers M $375,692 Bone M $387,401
Bone M $355,276 Bone M $365,276 Sager M $383,017
Sager M $352,017 McGarity M $359,192 McGarity M $369,192
McGarity M $349,192 Westbrook M $358,743 Westbrook M $368,743
Westbrook M $348,743 Rabban M $355,957 Rabban M $365,957
Rabban M $345,957 Sager M $355,017 Dickerson F $358,519
Goode M $334,720 Dickerson F $346,526 Levinson M $349,305
Dickerson F $334,526 Levinson M $339,305 Hu M $347,208
Levinson M $334,305 Goode M $337,720 Baker F $346,512
Peroni M $330,959 Baker F $334,824 Goode M $344,220
Mullenix F $329,418 Peroni M $333,959 Powe M $341,319
Powe M $328,319 Powe M $331,319 Peroni M $340,459
Baker F $322,824 Mullenix F $330,918 Sage M $340,000
Ascher M $320,887 Wagner F $326,297 Wagner F $338,297
Wickelgren M $318,500 Ascher M $324,387 Forbath M $338,104
Robertson M $318,410 Steiker M $323,724 Mullenix F $337,418
Wagner F $314,297 Wickelgren M $322,500 Steiker M $333,724
Steiker M $313,724 Silver M $321,265 Silver M $331,265
Silver M $311,265 Robertson M $320,410 Ascher M $330,887
Smith M $307,671 Smith M $311,171 Wickelgren M $329,000
Johanson M $299,044 Forbath M $303,104 Cohen F $319,972
Weinberg F $298,099 Johanson M $301,044 Smith M $314,171
Cohen F $294,972 Weinberg F $300,099 Jinks M $308,144
Markovits M $294,801 Markovits M $296,801 Johanson M $304,044
Forbath M $293,104 Cohen F $294,972 Weinberg F $303,099
Hu M $288,454 Hu M $292,454 Markovits M $299,801
Rau M $283,425 Rau M $287,425 Dzienkowski M $293,941
Dzienkowski M $282,941 Dzienkowski M $286,941 Golden M $291,832
Klein F $275,672 Klein F $279,672 Chesney M $287,700
Sage M $269,977 Golden M $276,832 Klein F $286,672
Engle F $268,000 Engle F $275,500 Engle F $282,500
Sturley M $265,947 Sage M $273,977 Sturley M $277,447
Graglia M $261,992 Chesney M $273,826 Wasserman F $277,000
Golden M $261,832 Sturley M $270,447 Albert M $274,000
Chesney M $261,826 Bintliff F $263,000 Laurin F $272,110
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Bintliff F $258,500 Woolley M $262,807 Bintliff F $270,500

Woolley M $258,307 Albert M $262,000 Franklin F $270,000
Albert M $250,000 Graglia M $261,992 Woolley M $267,807
Jinks M $248,644 Laurin F $260,110 Bracha M $267,000
Laurin F $248,110 Franklin F $257,000 Fishkin M $263,600
Franklin F $244,000 Bracha M $252,964 Vladeck M $259,000
Adelman M $242,000 Jinks M $252,644 Littwin F $257,833
Spindler M $239,750 Fishkin M $250,600 Sepper F $257,000
Dammann M $239,200 Adelman M $247,000 Morse F $255,000
Bracha M $237,964 Wasserman F $247,000 Adelman M $254,500
Fishkin M $237,600 Vladeck M $247,000 Dammann M $251,700
Wasserman F $235,000 Littwin F $245,833 Spindler M $250,751
Vladeck M $235,000 Spindler M $245,750 Deigh M $237,104
Littwin F $233,833 Dammann M $244,200 Blais F $235,115
Morse F $231,000 Morse F $243,000 Williams M $226,833
Johnson M $228,872 Blais F $233,115 Encarnacion M $215,000
Blais F $227,615 Johnson M $228,872 Ganor F $200,666
Williams M $210,333 Williams M $216,833 Churgin M $195,886
Churgin M $195,886 Ganor F $197,666 Perry M $183,824
Ganor F $195,166 Churgin M $195,886 Hansen F $168,196
Hansen F $168,196 Hansen F $168,196 Rau M n/a
Perry M $95,412 Perry M $95,412 Johnson M n/a
Deigh M $65,150 Deigh M $67,150 Graglia M n/a
Sepper F n/a Sepper F n/a Powers M n/a
Encarnacion M n/a Encarnacion M n/a Robertson M n/a
475. The pervasive and substantial pay disparity present between female and male
faculty shows a systematic discriminatory environment at UT Law.
476. The above chart also shows how UT Law has retaliated against Professor
Mullenix by moving her farther and farther down the salary array, even
though she had equal or better performance than those with higher salaries.
This continues to this day and additional columns on the above chart would
show Professor Mullenix falling farther down the array. Indeed, Professor
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Mullenix is now lower in the salary array than she was both prior to and after
her 2010 settlement, which UT Law alleges solved any potential unequal pay
issues. Specifically, according to the 2009 salary array, Professor Mullenix was
ranked 14th in the array. After her settlement, she moved up to 7th. According
to the latest salary array, Professor Mullenix is now 16th.1 Professor Bone has
not had a similar drop, always oscillating between the highest and second
highest paid faculty member. In other words, UT Law is moving backwards in
terms of equal pay for Professor Mullenix due to FII funding, equity bonuses,
and housing allowances made to mostly male faculty.
477. Moreover, since 2018, Dean Farnsworth has appointed at least eleven tenured
faculty members to Chair positions. All of these appointments have been male
and none female. Over half are or were members of the Budget Committee.
Upon learning that Dean Farnsworth had appointed a newly hired male lateral
faculty member to a Chair, Professor Barbara Bintliff – who has never held a
Chair – emailed Professor Mullenix that Chair appointment to another male
“was the last straw.”
478. Moreover, the salary arrays created by the law school, but not provided to the
faculty, generally contain a column containing “other supplements.” Female
faculty generally receive the lowest “other supplements” as compared to their
1
The salary array provided to Professor Mullenix for 2021-22 actually lists her as 14, but when the housing allowances
for Professor Forbath and Hu are added into their salaries, as they have been in previous salary arrays, Professor
Mullenix drops to 16.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
male counterparts. For example, in 2020 and 2021, four of the six faculty that
received the lowest “other supplement” amounts were female.
P. All conditions precedent to suit have been met.
479. On March 7, 2019, Professor Mullenix filed a charge of Discrimination with the
EEOC alleging sex discrimination, Equal Pay Act violations, and retaliation.
480. On November 14, after 180 days passed, Professor Mullenix requested a Notice
of Right to Sue, which was issued on November 20, 2019.
481. On November 26, 2019, Professor Mullenix requested a Right to Sue from the
Texas Workforce Commission.
482. All conditions precedent to filing suit have been met.
IV
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: EQUAL PAY ACT VIOLATIONS
483. Plaintiff incorporates all of the above paragraphs as if restated herein.
484. Defendant is subject to the Equal Pay Act.
485. Professor Mullenix performed work in a position requiring skill, effort, and
responsibility similar to that of her male counterparts, and in similar working
conditions.
486. As shown above, Professor Mullenix was paid less than her male counterparts
that were working under substantially equal jobs requiring similar skills,
effort, and responsibility as her position.
487. As shown above, Professor Mullenix was also retaliated against for asserting
violations of the Equal Pay Act.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
488. Because of the actions of Defendant, Professor Mullenix has suffered damages.
489. As shown above, Defendant has willfully violated the Equal Pay Act.
V
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: TITLE VII SEX DISCRIMINATION
491. Professor Mullenix is one of UT Law’s most distinguished professors.
492. Professor Mullenix is also one of UT Law’s most published and cited professors.
She consistently receives higher than average student reviews.
493. Despite her hard work and dedication to UT Law, Professor Mullenix is
compensated at a rate less than her male counterparts.
494. Professor Mullenix does not get equal pay for equal work.
495. Defendant is paying Professor Mullenix less because of her sex.
496. Defendant has violated Title VII.
VI
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: TITLE VII RETALIATION
498. Defendant has retaliated against Professor Mullenix by punishing her for
speaking up against its discriminatory compensation practices.
499. Defendant has marginalized Professor Mullenix’s role at the law school by
assigning her to “do-nothing” committees and refusing to consider her for
various university and law school teaching awards. She has been ostracized
and has been reduced to a pariah within the UT law faculty.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
500. She has received low raises in retaliation for challenging the inequitable
compensation system at the law school.
501. Moreover, shortly after she filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC,
Defendant increased the salary disparity between Professor Mullenix and the
male senior cohort in order to retaliate against her.
502. These actions, as well as the other actions stated in the complaint, violate Title
VII’s anti-retaliation provision.
VII
JURY DEMAND
503. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues and defenses in this case.
VII
DAMAGES
504. Plaintiff seeks all damages allowed under the law, including monetary relief
like back pay, benefits, lost wages, and:
(a) Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendants from
engaging in unlawful practices such as pay discrimination and
retaliation.
(b) Plaintiff seeks additional equitable relief as may be appropriate,
such as a raise to parity with male comparators, promotion, front
pay, and court costs.
(c) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for future pecuniary
losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish,
loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(d) Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including
reasonable expert fees.
(e) Plaintiff seeks pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum
rate allowed by law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully prays that
Defendant be cited to appear and, that upon a trial on the merits, that all relief
requested be awarded to Plaintiff, and for such other and further relief to which
Plaintiff is justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
WILEY WALSH, P.C.
By: /s/ Colin Walsh

Colin Walsh
Texas Bar No. 24079538
Board Certified Specialist, Texas Board of
Legal Specialization, Labor and Employment
Law
Jairo Castellanos
WILEY WALSH, P.C.

1011 San Jacinto Blvd., ste 401
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 27-5527
Facsimile: (512) 201-1263
colin@wileywalsh.com
Paige E. Melendez
ROB WILEY, P.C.

2613 Thomas Ave.
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 528-6500
Fascimile: (214) 528-6511
pmelendez@robwiley.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September 24, 2021 I sent a true and correct copy of the
foregoing to Defendant via e-filing
/s/ Colin Walsh

Colin Walsh
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff&#39;s Second Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff&#39;s Second Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-cv-01203-LY-SH Document 127-1 Filed 09/24/21 Page 1 of 116

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LINDA SUSAN MULLENIX, §

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

Professor Geoffrey Miller

Professor Richard Freer

Linda has a significant reputation in the field [of civil procedure].

Professor Robert Bone

Professor Robert Peroni

I am sorry to say that the quality of Professor Mullenix’s writing,

Dean Ward Farnsworth

Since 2016, Professor Linda Mullenix, one of UT Law’s most distinguished

Professor Bone has similar above-average teaching evaluation ratings as Professor

Professor Mullenix’s overall publications, and fewer professional honors. Professor

Pay Act and Title VII sex discrimination.

teaching experience, and fewer publications than Professor Mullenix, received

guaranteed raises to specific faculty regardless of their merit or performance. In 2018,

In retaliation and despite Professor Mullenix’s repeated requests to be

of disfavored faculty is a common tactic employed by Dean Farnsworth and prior

deans to punish outspoken faculty. Most disturbingly, because of Professor Mullenix’s

teachers is meant to retaliate and used as a not-so-subtle warning to any other

By paying Professor Mullenix less than similarly-situated male professors and

violated Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.

1. Plaintiff Linda Mullenix is an individual who resides in Travis County, Texas,

2. Defendant, University of Texas at Austin, is a state university located within

within the Western District of Texas.

teaching since 1991.

6. As of September 2021, Professor Mullenix has over 47 years of teaching

spring 2022 she will enter her 48th year of teaching.

7. At UT Law, Professor Mullenix teaches first-year federal civil procedure, mass

has taught complex litigation, federal courts, and conflict of laws.

8. Professor Mullenix’s academic responsibilities include creating course syllabi

with students, counseling students on academic and career issues, creating

and grading student performance assessment measures, performing

institutional committee obligations, attending law school faculty events,

research and publication of books, treatises, articles, and other commentary,

engaging in continuing legal education, engaging in professional activities

committees), participating as a speaker or conferee at academic and

professional meetings and conferences, and serving as a peer reviewer of

colleagues’ research and scholarship.

professor at Oxford University and the University of Trento in Italy.

Michigan, and Southern Methodist University law schools.

served as the Katherine Ryan Distinguished Professor at the Institute on

World Legal Problems in Innsbruck, Austria.

and professional audiences around the world, including in Australia, Austria,

Brazil, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Germany, Israel, Italy, South

Africa, Switzerland, and the U.K.

served as a Supreme Court Fellow at the Federal Judicial Center; was a

scholar-in-residence at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Study and

in Law in Trento, Italy.

American Bar Foundation. She also is an elected member of the International

Association of Procedural Law. She served on the Board of Directors of the

Austin Fulbright Alumni Association.

18. Professor Mullenix served as an Associate Reporter on the American Law

Institute Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, a consultative member

contribute a chapter to the ALI’s upcoming centennial volume commemorating

small group of distinguished scholars invited to contribute to this volume.

20. Since 2020 Professor Mullenix has been working on an international

collaborative project sponsored by the Max Planck Institute for Procedural

Law in Luxembourg, on Comparative Procedural Law and Justice.

member. This publication record can be verified by the review of Professor

in the record in this litigation.

commentary, analysis, or reviews.

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint